On Friday, 31 January, Taylor Marshall hosted a YouTube program, Can Popes Become Heretics? St. Robert Bellarmine Analysis, with Ryan Grant providing expert commentary.
Mr. Grant’s primary contribution to the topic is his in-depth knowledge of Latin and his ability to translate Bellarmine’s original texts. He also has a solid grasp of Church history and a gift for recalling a vast amount of information at will. The program is nearly two-hours long, but I learned a lot and found it well worth the time.
Though Marshall and Grant’s main objective is to refute sedevacantism in the broadest sense, the most valuable aspect of the program, in my view, is the degree to which it provides insight into the reasoning of sincere and learned Catholics who still insist that Jorge Bergoglio is not just a member of the Body of Christ, but her visible head on earth.
In fact, I think it’s safe to say that this program (Grant’s insights in particular) offers the best arguments that can be put forth against equally sincere persons, like me, who steadfastly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic and an anti-pope.
About sincere persons in both camps: Though he has degrees in theology and philosophy, Grant makes it a point to say that he is not a theologian, and he cautions that “there are a lot of people doing theology who really shouldn’t be” because they often make serious mistakes for lack of training, usually without even knowing it.
There is merit to these cautionary words, however, I would only point out that most viewers would likely conclude that the majority of the program consists of Mr. Grant, a self-proclaimed non-theologian, doing an awful lot of what looks like theology!
In reality, I think it is fair to say that he, and Taylor Marshall, were simply doing what I and many others are doing in this post-conciliar age by necessity; namely, using all of the tools at our disposal to help ourselves and others make sense of a confusing situation, all in an attempt to be and remain Catholic in spite of the present crisis. In this, we stand on common ground.
Now to the heart of the program, which conveys St. Robert Bellarmine’s thoughts concerning five particular opinions on the problem of a so-called heretical pope as largely as made known in his work, De Romano Pontifice – subject matter that, in Grant’s words, “is largely theological speculation.” Furthermore, as he later points out, Holy Mother Church still has not proposed anything definitive upon which we can rely with absolute certainty in the matter – truths to which we will return later.
The analysis begins in earnest with a look at Opinion #1, which asserts that a pope cannot possibly become a heretic, either publicly or privately. Mr. Grant informs us that Bellarmine considered this “a probable opinion.”
I, for one, would be very interested in learning more about why Bellarmine considered this to be the case. My assumption is that he believed that the gifts and promises bestowed upon Peter and his successors by Our Lord would prohibit such a thing from ever happening.
Whatever the case may be, several centuries later, the Church at Vatican Council I spoke on just this very thing:
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation [the Papacy] might stay firm against the gates of Hell. (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus) [Emphasis added]
Pay close attention: What precisely was conferred upon Peter and his successors? Truth and never failing faith. To what end are these gifts “divinely conferred” upon the popes? As a safeguard against the poisonous food of error, otherwise known as the gates of Hell.
NB: Never failing faith. Never means never; it does not mean occasionally. Error means error, and such is not limited merely to those things that fit a very narrow canonical definition of heresy.
Pope Pius XI, in his magnificent Encyclical Quas Primas, On the Feast of Christ the King, makes this very plain when he states that the Church is endowed with “perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy.”
Get that? Immunity not just from heresy strictly defined, but error, broadly speaking. Perfect and perpetual, as in never failing.
Pope Pius XII, in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, speaks likewise:
Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine.
Once again, we see that these divine gifts protect the Church from ever teaching false doctrines, and the protection provided is not limited to merely infallible, dogmatic definitions, as if everything else is up for grabs.
And how are these divine gifts made manifest such that the true Church is prevented from ever teaching false doctrine? The Holy Father tells us that it is “through divinely enlightened pastors” that the Church realizes this protection. This divine enlightenment, Pope Pius XII teaches, most profoundly applies to the pope:
Christ … enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion. (ibid.)
You see, it is the pope above all whom Our Lord imbues with grace in order to protect the entire Church from ever teaching error. This should make perfect sense to readers given Our Lord’s words as spoken at Caesarea Philippi:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
As stated, the “gates of Hell” refers specifically to the error and heresy from which the Church enjoys “perfect and perpetual immunity” (see Pius XI above), and one does well to note that Our Lord’s promise is directly linked to the establishment of the papacy.
With all of this in mind, is it any wonder that St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, believed it probable that a true pope could never fall into heresy?
For the sake of brevity, let us move on to Opinion #3, which maintains that a pope can never lose his office, or in any way suffer deposition, even if he should fall into manifest heresy. Mr. Grant offers Bellarmine’s assessment of this Opinion by quoting the Saint as stating:
It would be a most miserable condition for the Church if she were compelled to acknowledge the wolf manifestly prowling.
Are there any among us, who upon reading these words, did not immediately envisage the man known as Francis? Indeed, this cannot but call to mind the situation in which the conciliar church finds itself today. While no one can say for certain, it seems reasonable to believe that the blasphemous misdeeds and heresies of Jorge Bergoglio would far exceed whatever benchmark for ecclesial misery Bellarmine may have had in mind!
In any case, Mr. Grant then comments:
Neo-cons today would hold something similar to this – whether secret or public or manifest heresy, it doesn’t matter, you could never depose the pope.
To be fair, Grant made it plain elsewhere in the program that no earthly entity has authority over a reigning pope such that he can actually be “deposed” properly speaking. As such, what he really means to criticize is the idea that the Church would simply be stuck with a pope-turned-heretic, as if no remedies exist whatsoever short of the man either dying or otherwise departing on his own. This, in essence, is Opinion #3, and Grant clarifies the position taken by Bellarmine relative to it:
So, Bellarmine shows that this [Opinion #3] is wrong, because God would not allow the Church, it couldn’t happen that that God would say, yup, this is what you got to do, and you got to sit in this situation with the corruption of faith, you know, just happening all around, or the faith being reduced to a laughingstock in that way.
Once again, my friends, are there any among us who did not immediately call to mind the manifold ways in which Jorge Bergoglio has corrupted the faith and made of it a laughingstock?
Let us now fast forward to Opinion #5, the one endorsed by Bellarmine and about which Mr. Grant says that the Saint is “on pretty solid ground with his citations of the Fathers and the Patristics.” Let us recall before proceeding that Bellarmine thinks it is probable that a true pope would never fall into manifest heresy in the first place. So, his commentary on Opinion #5 can be prefaced, if a true pope should fall into manifest heresy, then…
Reading from the Latin text, Grant quotes Bellarmine:
This is the Fifth, true Opinion, that a manifestly heretical Pope ceases, per se, to be in head, just as, per se, he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church. This is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. So, this is the true opinion of the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics lose all jurisdiction.
In the book, St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice: On the Roman Pontiff (Mediatrix Press, 2015, pp. 304-310) Mr. Grant provides the following translation, worded slightly differently:
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
Note well the two occasions in which “per se” is employed by Bellarmine in the first translation. This phrase is often misused in casual conversation, but understood correctly it means “of itself, intrinsically, essentially.”
As Mr. Grant’s second translation makes plain, manifest heresy is such that the man “ceases in himself to be pope.” The important point is that the manifest heretic ceases to be pope not as the result of some subsequent act on the part of another human agent. Rather, the cessation is intrinsic to manifest heresy itself, therefore, no other action is necessary in order to bring about the heretic’s severance from the papacy and the Body of the Church.
In the case of a former pope (former as a result of his manifest heresy), that man is no different than any other baptized individual who, being subject to the Church’s authority, can be judged and punished by her.
NB: When Bellarine states “this is why he can be judged” (first translation) he does not mean to suggest that the pope, as pope, somehow finds himself open to judgment and punishment; rather, he means to say (as is made clearer in the second translation) that once he ceases to be pope by virtue of his manifest heresy, it is then that he, like any other baptized individual – in this case, one who is no longer even a member of the Church – can be judged and punished by the Church.
About Bellarmine’s statement concerning the Church’s judgment, Mr. Grant states:
He [Bellarmine] doesn’t say he [the manifest heretic formerly pope] can be judged by the opinion of men or by blogs or whatever … he says judged and punished by the Church.
In this, Grant is suggesting, and unreasonably so in my opinion, that those individuals who simply recognize a manifest heretic for what he is, publicly identify him as such and treat him accordingly are in some way encroaching upon the Church’s unique ability (and duty, I would add) to render judgment and punishment upon the heretic. One, however, does not follow the other.
Yes, but can the faithful at large truly recognize a manifest heretic?
This seems to be where, for the most part, the rubber meets the road in this matter, a point upon which Marshall and Grant would presumably disagree with me.
The answer is yes, of course, an individual layman can recognize a manifest heretic, at which point he has an obligation to withdraw from communion with him. This isn’t merely my opinion, but rather is it drawn for the instructions that are plainly given in Sacred Scripture to which we’ll return momentarily.
Speaking for myself, it is perfectly plain to me (and to men far more intelligent and holier than I) that Jorge Bergoglio has severed himself from the Body of the Church due to his manifest heresy. As such, I am convinced that this “Francis” person is an anti-pope and I have stated that belief publicly. Mr. Grant apparently believes that this amounts to a usurpation of the Church’s unique ability to render judgment and punishment upon Jorge Bergoglio. It is no such thing.
In fact, I pray for the day when the one true Church of Christ will exercise her singular power over the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio! In the case of a manifest heretic claimant to the papacy, the public judging and punishment leveled by the Church upon the man takes on the greatest importance, especially if (as may be expected) he is still looked upon as pope by innocent and mistaken faithful.
Mr. Grant then went about sharing his own opinion as to what Bellarmine actually meant when he stated, “This is why he can be judged and punished by the Church.”
For insight into the matter, Mr. Grant turned to Bellarmine’s writing on the Church (De Ecclessia), wherein the Saint wrote “On the utility, or even the necessity, of celebrating councils.” According to Grant, reading from the text:
He [Bellarmine] gives a number of reasons … he says, “The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff. If perhaps it would happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant, for then a General Council ought to be gathered either to depose the pope, if he could be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him if he seemed incorrigible in morals.”
Bellarmine uses the word “depose” here, and I suspect that some viewers came away confused. To be clear, he is not advocating for conciliarism; i.e., he is not stating that a council can exercise authority over a reigning pope in such a way as to “depose” him, properly speaking.
That said, note well that Bellarmine is suggesting that a council “ought” to be used for the purpose of examining a pope suspected of heresy. He does not suggest that the only way to examine a pope suspected of heresy, and to ascertain whether or not he is indeed a manifest heretic, is to gather a council. To be clear, ought is not to be confused with must.
In this portion of his presentation, Mr. Grant is attempting to illustrate what is required of the baptized vis-à-vis their relationship with a pope-turned-manifest-heretic. To this end, he cites Bellarmine’s comments concerning the duty of Lutherans to appear before a council that is called by the pope, unless that pope has been deposed by the Church.
[Bellarmine’s] got this onus on a council in order to carry out this particular thing, so that you know he’s a manifest heretic. So, [the Church is] going to give this declaration that it is so … Because [Bellarmine’s commentary] says for Lutherans, you have to go to the council unless it were first shown that the Pope were deposed as a heretic, then you wouldn’t have to listen to him. He doesn’t say when he first became a manifest heretic, right then you don’t have to listen to him anymore, which is what the sedevacantists do.
This argument has a number of holes in it, first of all, with regard to context. Bellarmine in this text is addressing a case involving Lutherans, in other words, schismatics and heretics: Of course they need some official declaration in order to know whether or not a claimant to the Chair of St. Peter is a manifest heretic to be avoided. They have lost the faith!
Bellarmine is not saying that no one – not even the most learned among the lay faithful – can possibly determine that a man is a manifest heretic apart from some official action on the part of the Church.
Furthermore, this “onus on a council” is merely what Bellarmine said “ought” to happen; he does not present it as a hard and fast requirement – a point we’ve already addressed.
Grant, however, boldly states: “You have to have that act of the Church.” Bellarmine, whom Grant himself informed us earlier is engaging in “speculative theology,” does not say “You have to have” anything.
What Grant is doing, presumably without even realizing it, is arguing something certain based on a theological opinion – something that, as we shall see shortly, he claims we must not do.
Furthermore, you have to have that act of the Church flies directly in the face of Bellarmine’s own words concerning Opinion #5: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church…”
In himself… This tells us that the Church does not have to act in order to make it so.
And bear in mind that Bellarmine’s commentary on Opinion #5 does not hint at any exceptions. As such, according to it, even if the overwhelming majority of the world’s faithful – including priests and bishops – were so sincerely mistaken (or so thoroughly imbued with error in their own right) as to look upon the manifest heretic as a true pope, their confusion would in no way change the objective reality; the man in question would still be – of himself, intrinsically, and essentially – a non-member of the Body of the Church and, therefore, not the Roman Pontiff. To the extent that he continued to present himself as pope, he would be an anti-pope.
This is not my opinion, properly speaking, I am simply fleshing out the logical conclusions that one must draw from Bellarmine’s view of Opinion #5 – the same that he called “the true opinion.”
That said, the Church does have a duty to, in Mr. Grant’s words, “give this declaration that it is so.” Let’s not confuse a declaration of what a thing is with an act that is necessary in order to make the thing what it is. In other words, the declaration simply announces what has already happened – the man of himself has ceased to be pope – it does not cause him to cease to be pope.
At this, let’s bring our focus back to where it belongs, the present day.
Bellarmine wasn’t faced with a man like Francis. More noteworthy still – as we attempt to garner insight from his commentary – is the fact that the body of bishops in his day, the same that he said “ought” to take steps to address the heretic in question, was largely comprised of faithful men who, like himself, were rightly repulsed by heresy.
What Bellarmine perhaps could not even envision is the putrid state of the institution presently based in Rome under the headship of “the humble one.” Nor could he imagine the utter unreliability of the world’s episcopacy in general. In other words, Bellarmine’s speculative ideas about a council gathering to examine a pope suspect of manifest heresy are unrealistic in the present situation.
Recall Ryan Grant’s criticism of neo-cons, who behave as if we have no choice but to suffer the present situation whereby a man claiming to be pope is corrupting the faith with impunity. Evidently, it is lost on him that this is essentially the position he has taken. After reviewing Bellarmine’s evaluation of the five opinions, he concludes:
You still don’t have a consensus, so you can’t argue something certain, like withdrawing from communion with the successor of St. Peter, whom the entire Church has received as Pope, based on a theological opinion, even if it seems very sound. Because, you can’t do something certain from what’s uncertain, and nobody’s going to know how all this is going to work until the Church deduces it into practice.
It seems that Ryan Grant, just like the neo-cons he previously criticized, believes that we really are stuck with Francis until such time as the one true Church – eclipsed as she is by the conciliar imposter in our day – emerges from the shadows to speak definitively. I think there is good reason to believe that St. Robert Bellarmine would disagree.
Recall how Mr. Grant summarized his thoughts:
God would not allow the Church, it couldn’t happen that that God would say, yup, this is what you got to do, and you got to sit in this situation with the corruption of faith, you know, just happening all around, or the faith being reduced to a laughingstock in that way.
Look, I wholeheartedly join those who pray fervently for the Church to act in a definitive way, judging and punishing Jorge Bergoglio and his ilk, condemning the Council, the Novus Ordo, etc. In the meantime, are we to believe that God is saying that we have to just sit here and wait as the faith is being corrupted?
The answer is no, He is not. In fact, God has seen fit to give us a remedy and, thankfully, it is recorded in Sacred Scripture.
As things presently stand, Francis, vis-à-vis his blasphemies and heresies, has been publicly examined, admonished, warned and corrected more times than one can count! The Dubia is perhaps the most formal of these admonishments, with each of the five dubium inviting him to reaffirm teachings that are “based on Scripture and tradition.”
And how has Francis responded? With silence.
Is anyone so foolish as to imagine that he would even attempt to defend himself before an imperfect council gathered to examine his suspect teachings? Of course not, which only goes to show how untenable, and ultimately ineffective, Bellarmine’s otherwise good suggestion of gathering a council for this purpose truly is in our day.
Many of the publicly known efforts that have been made in the examination of Francis and his heresies have been undertaken by priests, bishops and cardinals, who, although tainted in their own right with varying degrees modernism, have invited Francis to renounce his heresy and to reaffirm the true faith, to which he has only doubled-down on his false doctrines.
In all of this, the benchmark set in Sacred Scripture for determining that one is a heretic that must be avoided – that is, a man from whom we must withdraw communion – has not only been reached, it has been far exceeded. Let’s take a look:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Titus 3:10-11).
Note very well that no exception is made for claimants to the Chair of St. Peter.
Consider the following as well:
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt. 18:15-17)
Francis’ heresies and blasphemies are an offense first and foremost against Christ, but also against every member of His Body. Numerous “rebukes” of Francis have been made – the heresies enshrined in Amoris Laetitia in particular, some even prior to its publication. In response, Francis will not hear them.
With respect to the five Dubia that claim recourse to Sacred Scripture and tradition, we may say that “the Church” has spoken to Francis. In response to this, Francis will not hear the Church.
As such, according to Our Lord’s own instructions, we are to treat him as a heathen and publican; that is, as one outside the Church. Again, there are no exceptions given for claimants to the Chair of St. Peter.
More directly applicable to Francis still are the words of St. Paul:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Anathema: The loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Once again, no exceptions for men-in-papal-garb.
With respect to Francis, short of overwhelming confusion, no reasonably well-formed Catholic can possibly fail to recognize that the man is a manifest heretic who has judged himself as one who must be avoided. No council or declaration is needed in order to reach this conclusion; sensus Catholicus alone more than suffices.
May it please the Lord to move His Church to protect us from heresies and heretics of all stripes, and to make the declaration that all of us – Taylor Marshall, Ryan Grant, the present writer and many others – desperately desire.
I’m glad that you finally quoted the Vatican Council, most won’t, or seem to ignore it like it doesn’t exist. The Church has spoken much about every aspect of the Papacy clearly, against many who deny that it has.
Now we must apply the above same principles to every claimant to the Papacy since ’58, and think about the “poisonous food of error”, and be quick about it. Let’s cut to the chase, instead of creeeeping to the truth in slow motion.
Did the problems start with Jorge?
“Never failing faith. Never means never; it does not mean occasionally. Error means error, and such is not limited merely to those things that fit a very narrow canonical definition of heresy.”
But this cannot be understood to mean there are only 2 levels of the magisterium both infallible and not a 3rd level that is fallible. It can only be interpreted to mean “never failing” when one of the 2 levels of the infallible magisterium is engaged.
“perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy.”
When one of the infallible levels of the magisterium is engaged!
“Get that? Immunity not just from heresy strictly defined, but error, broadly speaking. Perfect and perpetual, as in never failing.”
Yes, I get it. But I also understand that he cannot be referring to the Authentic Magisterium, because if it’s not infallible, then it’s fallible. And if it’s fallible, then a pope can be heretical on a certain level, and the magisterium can be heretical on a certain level. If that’s not the case, why are we making distinctions on the level of the magisterium?
“Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine.”
Yes, of course, when either of the 2 infallible levels of the magisterium are engaged! But if someone says or acts as if something that the Church teaches to be fallible is infallible, they make themselves into clowns and jokers! Or are Catholics just sore the 3 levels of the magisterium were never taught in catechism books? Are Catholics puffed up with pride because the Church has never taught them the deeper more profound levels of truth, but only taught such knowledge to ivy league theologians? Yes the devil is attacking on a profound level not taught to the laity and the bishops are twirling their thumbs!
“Once again, we see that these divine gifts protect the Church from ever teaching false doctrines, and the protection provided is not limited to merely infallible, dogmatic definitions, as if everything else is up for grabs.”
You are concluding that what is fallible is infallible, why? Your quotes have not told you that, so why are you telling yourself and others that?
“Christ … enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion. (ibid.)”
That is exactly what the case is on the 2 infallible levels of the magisterium. Maybe your just sore because when the faithful have pointed out the heresy in the authentic level of the magisterium, the popes were as silent as when Francis was presented with a dubia?
The gates of hell have not prevailed against Holy Mother Church.
The proof that Francis is not pope has nothing to do with his blasphemy, it is his failure to reply to the dubia, which establishes a truth of the matter. But since Pope Benedict did not renounce the Munus. We don’t have a case where a validly elected pope publicly revealed he was not Catholic because of heresy. Maybe one or more of the conciliar popes were privately not Catholic, but since the faithful did not submit a dubia to them. It was never publicly revealed they were not Catholic. Thus they belonged to the body of the Church at the least and were popes. So if God allowed a validly elected pope to not be Catholic, he never allowed a validly elected pope to publicly state he was not Catholic. (Because we don’t know, it may be that God would never allow a validly elected pope to even privately not be Catholic. But this is a deeper level of questioning)
“The answer is yes, of course, an individual layman can recognize a material heretic, at which point he has an obligation to withdraw from communion with him”
We have a right to withdraw obedience from a material heretic (perhaps you meant to say “manifest”). Only after an actual heretic reveals to us publicly he is not Catholic because of heresy (manifest heretic) do we have an obligation to withdraw obedience and unity from him.
Seems to me Grant’s conclusion on listening to a heretical pope falls apart with St. Athanatius who operated outside ordinary jurisdiction when Pope Liberius simply failed to condemn Arianism!
Why stop at ’58?
We need to question every claimant of the Papacy from as back as ’00, or even further to the 1800’s over their neglect of upholding the faith in the face of the heresy of Heliocentrism.
After all, the entire rationale of those in ’58 was that the Church of the 1600-1700’s got it wrong on Copernicus & Galileo. Two completely contradictory worldviews switched place on the watch of the Papacies based directly on interpreting Scripture and long-standing capital ‘T’ Tradition.
So no, the problems didn’t start with Jorge… but they didn’t start with John XXIII either…
But what makes Jorge so special is that the previous Pontiffs were trying to solve what they honestly felt was a dilemma based on a crafty error that infects the entire world’s population, including 99.99% of all Catholics RadTrad & sede without them even realizing it.
Jorge’s errors, however, stem from him knowing full well he wants to do a direct 180 on Church teaching without any such intellectual dilemma. I believe he does what he does merely because he actually HATES the Catholic faith. He’s a complete apostate, versus the other contemporary popes who were certainly manifestly deficient, but I could believe a case could be made that they believed they were being faithfully Catholic.
It is the Galileo Affair and the rulings of the 1600s Holy Inquisition under St. Robert Bellarmine enforced by the full power of the Papacy upon the entire Christian world that has never been seen since, that nobody wants to examine. Yet this is the direct cause that would inevitably lead to Vatican II to try and ‘solve’ it.
What’s certainly got to stop is the conflation between laypeople avoiding and acknowledging as actual heretic, with them somehow claiming to be in the offices of authority tasked with making formal investigations, due procedure, and final declarations.
Of course laypeople wouldn’t have to do this if they could see the princes of the Church perform their duties, and that at least a sizeable number of them are working towards getting at the truth and solving the problem. Instead nobody wants to do anything, and no pressure can be brought to bear by the secular arm to make things happen.
This further proves what a failure the modern world of ‘democracy’ has become compared to the ages past where at least some Catholic monarch somewhere would easily see that this nonsense has to end, and march with his troops to the Vatican and lock those morons inside and cut off food and supplies from them, and refuse to let them out or let any nourishment in until they finally solve the problem.
That’s really what it’s going to take at this point. Unfortunately the ‘democratically’ elected leaders and other busybodies are too busy looting or selling out their own people for their retirement plan in the few years they have the opportunity to do so.
Louie: “You see, it is the pope above all whom Our Lord imbues with grace in order to protect the entire Church from ever teaching error.”
And every single “pope” since Vatican II has done the same. Promulgated, professed AND taught error to the UNIVERSAL Church. If Francis is a manifest heretic/non-pope, so are the others including Benedict.
Yes, for sure, the heresy of heliocentrism was/is a big problem as well. The old Church didn’t have that wrong. Copernicus & Galileo were rightly suppressed. They were causing much confusion.
I don’t think the Church pre-1958 was without problems either, and I honestly don’t know what to to do with that one.
Excellent points Johnno, and they must be examined. But who would be willing to do that objectively?
The vast majority will attack you for even bringing the question up.
Can you provide support that the Church officially taught geocentrism to the Universal Church? Also, can you provide support that the Church then changed its teachings and officially taught heliocentrism to the Universal Church?
Let us recall precisely what was condemned in the 1633 decree against Galileo:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
At that time, the Heliocentric model posited that the Sun was the immobile center of the universe. Modern-day heliocentrism is restricted only to the Solar System, and even then does not posit that the Sun is immobile, but rather is also in motion.
At that time, the motion of the Earth was considered “absurd and false philosophically” because arguments regarding why such motion did not result in forces one could feel could not be satisfactorily or adequately explained. Now, when the decree speaks of philosophy in this manner, it means natural philosophy, aka natural science; since that time, our understanding of physics has developed such that the motion of the Earth is not “absurd and false philosophically”, as there’s a consistent system to explain not only all of our observational data, but also why we don’t actually “feel” the motion of the Earth (insert long explanation or YouTube video regarding angular velocity, inertia, conservation of momentum, gravitational attraction between masses, etc).
Furthermore, two centuries after Galileo, the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII removed penalties against the publication of non-geocentric works in two separate decrees in 1820 and 1822, at least insofar as they treated solely on empirical matters (as the understanding of the heliocentric model at that time was far removed from what it was in the time of Galileo).
These days, you’re far more likely to run into someone who believes in a motionless flat Earth than you are someone who holds that the Sun is the motionless center of the universe.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.
St. Robert Bellarmine actually opens up “DE Romano Pontifice” with a whole section about the forms of government (which he postulates are all reducible to three forms or some combination thereof: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), which form is best in the ideal, which form is best in the practical order, and which form of government our Lord instituted for His Church as evidence by Scripture and history.
It’s actually quite fascinating, though it would very likely come off as quite alien to Western minds.
If you believe that the sun is fixed and does not move, or you believe the earth moves and is not fixed is really the same problem.
Both deny Holy Scripture and Creation, and runs with modern “science”. You either believe in the closed system of Genesis, or you deny it.
And keep those NASA “proofs” for those who want science-fiction.
“If you believe that the sun is fixed and does not move, or you believe the earth moves and is not fixed is really the same problem.”
No they aren’t. They’re related to two different celestial objects.
“Both deny Holy Scripture and Creation, and runs with modern “science”. You either believe in the closed system of Genesis, or you deny it.”
This is a false dichotomy.
“And keep those NASA “proofs” for those who want science-fiction.”
Observational evidence regarding celestial motion and the Earth’s own rotation (such as Foucault’s pendulum) predate NASA’s existence.
Also, your own personal incredulity (“NASA proofs = science fiction”) is not an argument.
Again, where is the official Church teaching one way or another?
Your take on these issues are very important. Your arguments are not new but have been lobbed at the Salza & Siscoe duo and the rest of the R&R advocates for some time now. It is important that you continue this conversation because I believe you have a pure thirst for the truth and are doing your best to moderate your passions and the questioning of the other side’s intentions. This is important and needs to remain a gentleman’s disputation. As St. Francis de Sales says, if one is to fall into excess, it should be on the side of gentleness. In dealing with the topic at hand, I believe his counsel is necessary and we need to be constantly reminded of it.
With that said, below are some quotes from St. Bellarmine that have helped form my SV position. I think they are helpful to anyone who is trying to decide how to respond to the heresies coming from the supposed Vicar of Christ. It seems to me that the argument is not whether the conciliar “popes” are manifest heretics, but what is our response, and do we have limits that cannot be transgressed.
I apologize in advance for this next paragraph. I have tried my best to relay the thoughts I am trying to express.
Bellarmine leverages the Church’s teaching and inability to judge internals for his arguments, and he extends this inability to read hearts to all of mankind. It seems to me that he takes the position that anyone who concludes a Pope has ipso facto fallen from the office due to an external act of heresy, i.e. Liberius, yet has not truly done so due to fear or the absence of pertinacity, i.e. Marcelinus and Liberius, and that same person was wrong because there was an a hidden truth unbeknownst to him, then that same person would not be held accountable to God since “Men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.”. In the mind of that said person, the logical consequence of this conclusion when dealing with a Pope is that the Chair of Peter is vacant, at least in act but maybe not in potency (Sedeprivationism).
That is all we are asked to do because that is all we can do. It is very Catholic for a person to judge rightly according to the Church’s teachings those who are not Catholic by their external professions. It is not Catholic for a person to judge the actions and words of those whom they claim are still in authority over them. For me, it is either submit to those in authority over me or ignore those who have no authority over me. It is impossible for one to be disobedient towards another who does not possess authority.
Although Liberius was not a heretic, still it was considered that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a heretic, and from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. For men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.
But Marcelinus neither taught something against faith, nor was a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the fear of death. Now, whether he fall from the pontificate due to that external act or not, little is related; later he abdicated the pontificate and shortly thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe that he would not have fall from the pontificate ipso facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of fear.
By the way, I do prefer your writings to your podcasts. Take no offense, it is not entirely your fault. Your articles are worded so well and get right to the point. Podcast conversations tend to express too much due to the nature of silence be abhorred, so people tend to talk too much. They then come across as being less serious or important, and just one of the many talking heads. But I also understand the desire to reach more people. Just my opinion, keep doing what you want.
Louie, I need to read this piece a few more times carefully because it is so rich. However, one aspect of it impressed me so that I am compelled to comment right away. Your respectful tone, your lack of sneering as you work your way through the points that support your view and compare it with others’ take on the situation. I come to the same conclusion you do — if I am understanding what you’ve written — which is: how do more Catholics not see that this Pope is manifestly a heretic, and so dramatically and obviously one that it hardly takes committees and folks with doctorates in theology to see this? It seems that every day brings some new outrage. (Today alone, there were at least six. Just one example: the Vatican has not denied that Melinda Gates had a private meeting in Rome with the Pope. Melinda Gates, who has stated the mission of the rest of her life is to spread contraception across the globe and who has paired the Gates Foundation with Panned Parenthood to achieve this goal.) As we Catholics try to survive these dark days and make sense of them, it is so important to be charitable with each other, as you have been here. You didn’t take cheap shots at Taylor Marshall; you just laid out his points and yours. When people who view Bergoglio as you and I do — he’s a heretic and an Antipope — are regularly dismissed as “Bennyvacantists” by the editor of a Catholic webjournal, civility in both directions matters. Thanks for being civil, as well as for publishing the piece itself.
Yep, regarding modern cosmogony, I never studied into that evidence or NASA “proofs”. Just like my studies into the Catholic Church, I don’t know anything about that either.
I’m just an ignorant and stupid flat-earther.
There’s no need to put words in my mouth. I have not called you stupid or anything of the like.
I do, however, think you’re placing undue emphasis on cosmology as a matter of divine faith, insofar as the Church herself has not deemed the Earth’s physical centrality as a matter of divine faith and revealed truth (for otherwise, Pope Pius VII and his Holy Office would not have allowed the publication of non-geocentric works, if a geocentric worldview is part and parcel of Catholicism and integral to the Faith). More than anything else, from what I recall, Galileo’s intransigence was more the occasion of sin than the particular cosmological viewpoints he held, for he proceeded to ignore and disobey the Church after being appropriately admonished and condemned.
For the post-V2 “popes” to say that the Church “got it wrong” with Galileo is an entirely different kettle of fish, for the Church acted appropriately with regards to one of her perpetually disobedient children, who refused to recant and submit after multiple admonishments. Just as the Church acted appropriately when Pius VII removed Copernican works from the Index in the early 19th century, as the theories once condemned were no longer held, and the new theories were not therefore deemed formally heretical as a result (since the Sun’s immobility was no longer a facet of the heliocentric model).
I will leave this as my last word on the topic, as it’s rather thorough and covers the patristic and magisterial angles quite sufficiently: https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/
But in the end, whether the universe is geocentric or not, God is still the Almighty Creator.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
(perhaps you meant to say “manifest”)…
Indeed! Thank you for pointing it out. I’ve fixed it.
As St. Francis de Sales once said, more flies are caught with a spoonful of honey than a barrelful of vinegar.
Do you believe Benedict is pope? Does Louie? I didn’t think Louie believed Benedict was (still) pope. At the very least, he has not made that clear.
“Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office or holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves…
We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…”
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio
(Documents in the Case of Galileo: Indictment, Sentence and Abjuration of 1633)
Vatican I. (Session 2, Profession of Faith):
“…Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers…”
Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)
Augustine: Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies. (City of God, Bk XIII, Ch 18)
Basil: In the midst of the covering and veil, where the priests were allowed to enter, was situated the altar of incense, the symbol of the earth placed in the middle of this universe; and from it came the fumes of incense. (The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle, Bk V, Ch VI; Clement of Rome, Stromata, Bk V)
Chrysostom: For He not only made it, but provided also that when it was made, it should carry on its operations; not permitting it to be all immoveable, nor commanding it to be all in a state of motion. The heaven, for instance, hath remained immoveable, according as the prophet says, “He placed the heaven as a vault, and stretched it out as a tent over the earth.” But, on the other hand, the sun with the rest of the stars, runs on his course through every day. And again, the earth is fixed, but the waters are continually in motion; and not the waters only, but the clouds, and the frequent and successive showers, which return at their proper season. (Homilies to Antioch, Homily XII)
Irenaeus: The sun also, who runs through his orbit in twelve months, and then returns to the same point in the circle (Against Heresies, Bk I, Ch XVII, 1)
1. “to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens…and the earth… revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
Let all the earth be moved at his presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable. 1 Cor. 16:30
Memento Mori 2:
I thank you very much for taking the time to post those quotes.
It seems to me that ASM’s link explains the decree against Galileo. No geocentrist believes the Sun is the “center of the world” which is what Galileo was accused of.
Also, all other quotes are not universal teachings of the Magisterium. I have yet to see magisterial teaching on the Scriptures regarding this matter. Therefore, I do not believe that the Church ever taught that a Catholic must believe in geocentrism.
Clearly this issue is NOT the same situation as Vatican II whereby putative popes have taught heresy to the Universal Church in a supposed Catholic Ecumenical, General Council.
Here is a link from the SSPX on the matter:
Sorry, that should say “No HELIOCENTRIST believes that the Sun is the center of the world”.
What’s a manifest heretic?
2Vermont: “Therefore, I do not believe that the Church ever taught that a Catholic must believe in Geocentrism.”
OH? THEN WHY ALL THIS:
“Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office or holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves…
We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…”
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio”
Oh…and guess WHO and WHAT “declared” that the ruling of THE CHURCH against Galileo WAS AN ERROR: a Pope of the religion of Antichrist:
John Paul II.
False Francis Proclaimed As Being Above God:
Fr. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to Francis stated, “Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is ‘free from disordered attachments.’”
“Our Church has indeed entered a new phase,” writes Rosica. “With the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
(LifeSite News Aug. 2018)
“…the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if
he were God.”. (The Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians 2)
A Simple Beggar, did you read the link by A Simple Man? From what I can gather, it looks like Galileo’s beliefs were somehow different than the typical heliocentrist view, and this is why the Cardinals stated as such.
If you believe that the Church changed its official teachings from geocentrist to heliocentrist and that this was a teaching that Catholics had to believe before Vatican II, then do you believe that those popes who were heading the Church at the time were false popes as well? That is why this topic was brought up by Johnno in the first place.
It is a good and fair question, but based on what I have found and read, I don’t think the two are comparable (which was my point). FYI: I am not interested in getting into the specifics of those debates (helio vs geo or flat earth).
I don’t see how St. Robert Bellarmine’s hypothetical discussion is relevant at all when the hypothetical in question was eliminated by the Church at Vatican Council I. The Pope can’t be a heretic, therefore there was a problem with the 1958 conclave because that conclave elected a Freemason and Freemasons are heretics. Since that happened and Catholics went happily along with a Freemason and a new religion, we can’t fix this until we identify the point of departure which EVERYONE knows was 1958. But NOBODY wants this fixed. WHO are you people? Mr. Verrecchio, you clearly point out that this debate was laid to rest with Vatican Council I, but then go on at length about the irrelevant Bellarmine opinions. Everywhere I turn, we’re just spinning our wheels. I am truly in bizarro world.
It is frustrating. I kind of agree with you but for different reasons. Two thoughts before explaining though: 1) both sides site Bellarmine for their support so I believe that is why it is important to at least seek to understand his positions, and 2) because Vatican I did adopt the thoughts he advocated for but not all of them. So Vatican I heavily depended on Bellarmine.
To your point, I think the primary focus should be on what the Catholic Church and Immaculate Bride of Christ can do rather than on the person of the Pope. Yes, the Pope is the pillar of truth for the Church but only when we have one. Christ said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, so for me, this is easier than we make it. Since the Bride of Christ can never be an adulterous Whore like that of the Old Testament, then any action or word that can only come from a Whore can’t be from our Holy Mother. Thus, the head of this Whore can’t be the Vicar of Christ.
Again, anyone who recognizes VII as the Whore, must be logically consistent and deem her head to be an enemy of Christ, not His vicar.
It is absolutely true and dogmatic that the Catholic Church can not defect from Her mission and the truth. The same cannot be said for a Pope since, if a true Pope can become a heretic, he ipso facto loses his office. I personally agree with Opinion #1 from Bellarmine but am with him that is is not certain, only probable.
Modern “cosmogony” was developed over time as a replacement for the Cosmogony of Genesis. It is an alternate worldview that comes in the same package with Evolution and is the official teaching of the NWO. It is totally incompatible with the Divine Revelation of Genesis. And I know they have no proof of any of it, because I’ve taken the time to study into it for quite a few years now. Some commenters here have not done their research, and by their comments they reveal their lack of knowledge on the subject.
Actually there is nothing TO debate, as that has been already laid down for us. Creation was revealed in Genesis, we are supposed to believe God and His Revelation first, including a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, and we must believe the consensus of the Fathers, on how to understand those Scriptures. If people are not willing to study into it, then they may just go on believing a lie. But lies corrupt the intellect and soul. Like Johnno said above, it’s all a battle of two conflicting and opposed worldviews.
Galileo was wrong, period. The earth doesn’t move. That’s heresy. And not because I say so.
I would advise all to study into it because it’s extremely important.
Robert Sungenis has done some good work in this area with his three-volume book, “Galileo was Wrong, The Church was Right”, and various films, etc.
That the Church taught Geocentrism officially is opbvious from the fact that Galileo was under canonical trial charged with being vehemently suspect of heresy.
In order for Galileo to be guilty of heresy, that heresy first had to be defined definitively, and therefore applicable and binding upon all the faithful, which it was.
This is outlined in the decrees of 1616 under Pope Paul V and 1633 under Pope Urban VIII. The propositions condemned were:
1) The the Sun was the center and immobile – censured as FORMAL HERESY.
2) That the Earth is not the center and moves its entire self through space with diurnal rotation – censured as equally absurd as the first and also as erroneous in philosophy, theology and faith.
There was a little more leeway allowed to the 2nd proposition because Scripture speaks that the Earth can be ‘moved’ due to internal instability as in Earthquakes, or when the Lord Himself does move it as when He shakes the Heavens and the Earth in the Scriptures.
These decrees were in turn based logically on the Council of Trent, whereby the Church Fathers, whenever in consensus on matters of interpreting Scripture, were declared infallible. All the Fathers were Geocentrists and defended Geocentrism in the face of the pagans who either held Heliocentrism, or if they held Geocentrism, used it to attack the divinity or divine status of Jesus Christ because it was unthinkable to them that any god would denigrate themselves to the level of humans occupying the lower domain of the Earth, when the domain of the gods was the Heavens, and therefore the central Earth was seen as the lowest abode, described colourfully as the ‘anus’ of the universe.
The Council of Trent made this a dogmatic point, because if the Fathers could be found wrong on one area of interpreting Scripture, then naturally doubt could be cast on any other things they interpreted, and the Protestants and heretics could have a field day with just about everything the Church maintained as part of Tradition. Galileo, likewise, tried to argue that scientists should be able to interpret Scripture in ways contrary to the Church in order to do science. The Catechism of Trent also implicitly taught that it was the celestial bodies that have a revolution, whereas the Earth was commanded by God to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation.
St. Robert Bellarmine outlined this particular thing as why the trial against Galileo was so necessary. In his letter to Fr. Foscarini, he wrote: “Second, I say that, as you know, the
Council prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Reverence wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators.”
Hence Paul V ordered Bellarmine to sentence Gaileo: “in the
presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it.”
Galileo obeyed and this was noted: “The Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having given the report that the mathematician Galileo Galilei had acquiesced when warned of the order of the Holy Congregation to abandon the opinion which he held till then, to the effect that the sun stands still at the center of the spheres but the earth is in motion.”
This ruling was then imposed formally under Papal authority upon the entire world: “Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church specially delegated by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Paul V and the Holy Apostolic See to publish everywhere throughout the whole of Christendom.”
This was again reiterated when Galileo, who continued to be suspect in the eyes of others, asked Cardinal Bellarmine to reaffirm that he had submitted himself to the Church’s ruling on this matter. Bellarmine writes: “We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have heard that Signor Galileo Galilei is being calumniated or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others, here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. He has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from the east to the west) is contrary to Holy Scripture, and therefore cannot be defended nor held. In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on the 26th day of May 1616.”
There is no such thing as a heresy exclusive to any one person that others can also hold. As should be obvious, nobody had a right to proclaim the same heresies Galileo was found guilty of. As should be clear also, this was not just some ‘scientific dispute’ outside the Church’s hands, this was treated as an attack on the faith and on Scripture itself.
Urban VIII also continued to uphold the 1616 decree when Galileo was found once again trying to circumvent it through other cunning means. The Pope was also making the affair known and treated it as a most serious matter when as the Grand Duke of Tuscanny, Francesco Niccolini, described it: “His Holiness exploded in great anger, and suddenly he told me that even our Galilei had dared enter where he should not have, in the most serious and dangerous subjects which could be stirred up at this time.
He said that he had prohibited works which had his pontifical name in front and were dedicated to himself, and that in such matters, involving great harm to religion (indeed the worst ever conceived), His Highness [the Grand Duke] too should contribute to preventing it, being a Christian prince…”
Also writing later: “In fact, the Pope believes that the Faith is
facing many dangers and that we are not dealing with mathematical subjects here but with Holy Scripture, religion, and Faith
However, above all he says, with the usual confidentiality and secrecy, that in the files of the Holy Office they have found something which alone is sufficient to ruin Mr. Galilei completely; that is, about twelve years ago, when it became known that he held this opinion and was sowing it in Florence, and when on account of this he was called to Rome, he was prohibited from holding this opinion by the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, in the name of the Pope and the Holy Office.”
And again: “He [the pope] retorted that in cases where religion might suffer damage, it was less harmful to overreact occasionally than to be remiss as a result of the reasons I mentioned, and thus to endanger Christianity with some sinister opinion; furthermore, he had been told by His Holiness that, since we are dealing with dangerous dogmas, His Highness [the Grand Duke, Cosimo Medici] should put aside all respect and affection toward his Mathematician and be glad to contribute himself to shielding Catholicism from any danger.
I replied by again humbly begging him to consider that Mr. Galilei is Mathematician to His Highness, currently employed and salaried by him, and also universally known as such. His Holiness answered that this was another reason why he had gone out of the ordinary in this case and that Mr. Galileo was still his friend, but these opinions were condemned about sixteen years ago and Galileo had gotten himself into a fix which he could have avoided…”
The Pope was therefore also ordering other royalty of the Church to obey him and the condemnations of Galileo’s propositions because they were a direct threat to the Faith itself as false doctrines – “I replied that I hoped His Holiness would
double the obligation imposed on His Highness by exempting him from this [the trial]….but he again said he does not think there is any way out, and may God forgive Mr. Galilei for having meddled with these subjects. He added that one is dealing with new doctrines and Holy Scripture … he was sorry to have to displease him, but one was dealing with the interests of the faith and religion.”
One could go on, even with latter examples where the Catholic editors of Newton’s book had to put a disclaimer on it that despite publishing it, they themselves rejected Newton’s premises, because they were acting in obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiffs.
The decrees were never revoked by the Church. In order to undo one canonical trial, another would be necessary, and this has never been done. Instead, the teaching was allowed to fall by the wayside and over time less enforced, much like how we got to where we are regarding the use of contraception. The princes of the Church, even the Popes, became too intimidated to continue to confront it. This is despite there being absolutely no evidence to prove the Church wrong. And when one looks behind the scenes, one will discover the same neglects, doubts, and modernist subterfuge going on as can be witnessed with maneuvers that took place during Vatican II or even under Francis, where suddenly things happen that are a complete 180 on what the Church upheld, and no reasons are given whatsoever, and nobody is disciplined for doing so, even with Papal knowledge, and sometimes with Papal permission.
So, James do you believe that the popes who allowed non-geocentric theories are true popes?
So, Johnno, if the Church officially taught Geocentrism as dogma (and I’m still not convinced based on other things I have read), are those popes who contradicted said teachings false? How do you explain the Church contradicting her teachings if in fact it did?
Is this an error? What do sedes say? Benedict XV giving a possibility to go contrary to pretty much unanimous consent of the Fathers:
““If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live MAY not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought,” (4, IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV)
Also, even modern scientists admit it is entirely possible for geocentrism to be the case:
“One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right.”
Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Sir Fred Hoyle,Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco:W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975.
“We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.”
In 1633, Galileo was formally sentenced and punished. Here is the complete ruling against him.
Trads and Sedes should take note of the language used in the condemnation, because it is some of the most serious ever written, and seen no differently or less dangerously than any other heresy or error against the Catholic Faith. Given how much the world today uses the Galileo affair to bash and ignore the Church on every other issue, it was definitely warranted:
“Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, age seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture.
This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on 25 February 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned.
And in execution of this decree, on the following day, at the Palace, and in the presence of his Eminence, the said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was enjoined upon you by the Father Commissary of the Holy Office of that time, before a notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the said false opinion and not in future to hold or defend or teach it in any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and, upon your promising to obey, you were dismissed.
And, in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.
And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World Systems: Ptolemy and Copernicus”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards informed that through the publication of the said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was daily gaining ground, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms probable: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture.
Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office, where, being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book to be written and published by you. You confessed that you began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago [1621-1623], after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you requested license to print it without, however, intimating to those who granted you this license that you had been commanded not to hold, defend, or teach the doctrine in question in any way whatever.
You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in many places drawn up in such a form that the reader might fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side are calculated by their cogency to compel conviction rather than to be easy of refutation, excusing yourself for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue and by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to his own subtleties and in showing himself more clever than the generality of men in devising, even on behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.
And, a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare your defense, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against the calumnies of your enemies, who charged that you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office, in which certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had not been punished but only that the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.
And, as in this certificate there is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely, the order not “to teach” and “in any way,” you represented that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost all memory of them and that this was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested permission to print your book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your error but that it might be set down to a vainglorious ambition rather than to malice. But this certificate produced by you in your defense has only aggravated your delinquency, since, although it is there stated that said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability; nor does the license artfully and cunningly extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify the command imposed upon you.
And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination at which (without prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic.
Therefore, having seen and maturely considered the merits of this your case, together with your confessions and excuses above-mentioned, and all that ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final sentence against you:
Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, by this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and you Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part –
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.
And, in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.
We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute, or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.
And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.”
Did Bellarmine ever meet Bergoglio? Also, JP2 said that it is OK to be a Freemason. Wonder why?
This link (provided above by A Simple Man) addresses the 1633 Decree:
No, I do not consider them false Popes. But it is clear that they are suspect of material heresy. Or at the very least, that despite being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, made decisions that greatly led to undermining the Catholic Faith.
Regardless of whether one accepts Heliocentrism or Geocentrism, the fact facing us is that either –
a) The Holy Spirit and the Papal office were misinterpreting Scripture from 33 AD upwards to around the 1800s.
b) The Holy Spirit and the Papal office were misinterpreting Scripture from around the 1800s until today.
The matter, for anyone honest enough to actually read the arguments, letters, decrees and history over the affair, is not about some scientific arguments outside of the Church’s jurisdiction. It was over Scripture, and Tradition stretching back to the Fathers and Greek and Latin commentators and beyond even unto the Traditions of the Jews following from Moses, Joshua & Hezekiah.
The only rulings we possess on this matter come from the decrees and condemnations from the 1600s, and which continued to be reinforced throughout the 1700s, or which I can provide more quotations. Then around the 1800s, from a variety of modernism infecting the Church that relied on subterfuge and outright lies, to logistical and political issues that made access to the Inquisition’s archives extremely difficult, the latter Papacies, under duress, or intimidated by the controversy, or who were conveniently lied to, began to be more lenient to allowing what was once defined and condemned as formal heresy to filter through and have a free run. Some even granting imprimaturs to works that would’ve been censured before, and even unto removing condemned works off the Index, some even pulling a ‘Francis’ and allowing suspect things to occur without any justification or explanation. A habit that continued on until, as Cardinal Ratzinger described, led to the outcome that was the convening of the Vatican II Council, where the periti entered into it imagining they could reverse the damage done by the Galileo Affair. And oddly enough, despite some aiming for that purpose, the Council didn’t say anything about it, and the next best attempt was under John Paul II who had a commission looking into it, and nothing came from that either, as they likely returned telling him that the condemnation could not be reformed, just as the 1600-1700 Papacies and Bellarmine stated believing it was irreformable. And even more oddly enough, both Ratzinger and JPII resorted to appealing to Einsteinian General Relativity, where for those who are actually informed about its nature, admit that Geocentrism is viable, but rejected by the atheistic random-chance community because it was deemed unlikely as a product of random chance and proof positive of a designing God. Even Newton ommitted from his own works what he himself admitted in a removed proposition that Geocentrism was a viable system.
Given the historical precedent that is the Galileo affair, we are stuck with the factual history of the Church and Papacies encouraging two separate things at two separate times. The prior very forcefully defining and condemning something as formal heresy. The latter, simply being intimidated into silence and laxity over enforcing it. But the only reason the latter could do that is because they were either confused or convinced. In charity we must say they were confused. Yet they allowed or performed actions that would undermine the Church of the past and the teaching. Thus we must logically ask…
Where was the Holy Spirit?
If we conclude that the Holy Spirit wasn’t there, and thus these were false Popes stretching back 200 years, then this is absurd, and means the Church failed.
So we can’t do that, and thus we must reason that the Holy Spirit was there, yet did not protect the Popes from undermining the Church. Because one way or another the Holy Spirit was either sleeping before, or He was sleeping afterwards. And I feel you’ll be with me on the fact that it is impossible that the Holy Spirit was erring since the time of Moses to Peter to the Fathers to Urban and every 1700s Papacy bound by his authority.
We must therefore conclude that these latter Popes were operating under material heresy. And that material heresy does not cut one off from the Catholic faith, and thus neither does it separate the man from the office of Pope. This is the ONLY logical conclusion.
Thus for one to lose the Papal Office, FORMAL heresy must be established.
If this can be done for the suspect papacies of 1958-on, then so be it.
So in brief, I believe that every Pope form the 1800s up to John Paul II are legitimately elected Popes, unless we can prove that any one of them were formal heretics. Which is difficult to do given they are dead unless some bullet-proof evidence can be found or established.
And given Benedict and Francis are both alive now, there is still time to establish this by putting them in the dock and getting them to admit what they believe under due pressure. If they can prove themselves innocent, or shown to be holding material heresy, they recant of it, then they are valid Popes (Benny’s resignation issue notwithstanding). If shown they hold heresy, decide to double down on it obstinately, then they are formal heretics, cease to be members of the Church, and if being once the Pope, have therefore lost the office. And thus can be judged by the Church, as these men either ceased being Popes or one of them never was.
Robert Sungenis has also addressed the geocntrism debunked site of David Palm’s countless times. You can find a refutation of practically every article of it here.
Sungenis also replied to the SSPX on the matter here:
The pdf links across the site are down, unfortunately, I’ve tried to contact Rob to fix this.
Johnno, bravo to you Sir! What you have done is prove beyond the reasonable doubt that geocentrism was always official doctrine of the Church. Above as mentioned, Church Fathers say the same thing. If one was to hold to sedevacantist principle, that would render Benedict XV an antipope for a statement such as this:
“If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist….and though this Earth on which we live MAY not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought…” (4, IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV)
He is leaving up to a science to determine exactly what Church fought centuries earlier against Galileo. You can see the modern thought creeping in, just as saint Pius X was warning us about in Pacendi. The last thing modern catholics want is to be considered “backward” by the “science” and say that we are indeed positioned right at the center of the universe.
Johnno: So both choices lead us to the defection of Christ’s Church (ie. the Gates of Hell prevailing). Nope, can’t be the only two choices.
” What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our [cosmological] models.”, George F.R. Ellis, Mathematician, Physicist, Cosmologist. Anti-God, anti-Creation irrational “philosophy” – agenda-driven theories of the universe (or is it “multiverse”?!!).
If sedes claim that the Pope is protected from any heresy or is totally immune from taking any steps that may lead to harming the Church, then those two options are your only way of interpreting the facts of what the Church taught pre and post Galileo. If you know of a third one, then by all means present it.
I do not hold that sede view, because as you say, it strongly implies that one way or another the Church has defected.
This is why I maintain that the Protection of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promises to Peter is only with regards to protecting a Pope from falling into formal obstinate heresy. And does not apply to expressions or general material heresy manifested under duress, or through general ignorance and confusion, or when tricked and manipulated by those subordinate to him.
In the case of Geocentrism, I hold that the teaching was later not enforced, and that later Popes, as Benedict XV expressed in the 1900s when he expressed doubt publicly that what the Church once taught MAY not be true… none of them were formal heretics, and that the Holy Spirit was even working to the point where even Vatican II and even John Paul II were prevented from reforming the teaching, even though there’s no doubt in my mind that both JPII and Benedict XVI likely believed in heliocentrism as much as they believed in Darwinism, despite both of them making public writings admitting that the scientific community hadn’t made its case against the Church. Much the same for Pius XII, who despite being enthusiastic of Lemaitre’s Big Bang nonsense, and likely touched by belief in evolution and heliocentrism himself, still in his encyclical was prevented from proclaiming error in Humani Generis, and in fact only allowed at worst for Catholcs to engage in open-discussion, while upholding the dogma that all of humankind is descended from Adam and Eve as genetic offspring, in opposition to the racist multi-ape theory of descent of different races of humans.
And Pius, JP and Benny XV and XVI all laboured under these scientistic delusions for the same reason 99.99% of the world Catholic or otherwise also does. We’ve all been indoctrinated in it as if it were an established dogmatic fact over and over and over again throughout our lives, and so when we go around butchering and reinterpreting our Church history, our human origins, and the Papal condemnations of the heresies of Copernicus and Galileo’s, we behave no differently than the periti of Vatican II where we try to reconcile what we are fooled into thinking is the Truth with the Truths of the faith under some newfangled third-way hermeneutic because we understand that Truth cannot contradict Truth.
So once the modernist were through with discrediting the Book of Genesis and the Papacies and Fathers up to the 1800’s, they are naturally moving forward with destroying everything else with ourselves in the role of oblivious useful idiots for the cause, where the direct words of God in Scripture, and the direct condemnations of Galileo’s propositions by Holy See, have to go through contorted re-interpretations where we try to pretend that they do not mean what we think they say, and likewise the same strategy applies to every other doctrine and moral principle. Everything is up for grabs.
As Bellarmine warned, and nobody can escape from. If the Fathers consensus interpretation of Scripture about the movements of the Earth and Sun are in error, even at a time where alternate views existed that they could have accommodated if this weren’t the case, then so too can they be doubted on every other interpretation of Scripture, and therefore so too does the Council of Trent err in making them dogmatically infallible, which means Church Councils and the Tradition the Holy See claims to protect is erroneous, which therefore also means the entire Tradition that the power of the Holy See and the successors of Peter rely upon are dubious, and therefore so too is the entire Christian faith. So Truth is whatever the consensus of Scientists in any era want it to be, or there is really no such thing as absolute Truth at all, and just as their science led to Relativity, so too does Relativity as the physics of reality apply to every moral edifice. Thus Bellarmine, Paul and Urban rightly saw this as the most dangerous doctrine there ever was, and as time has proven 300 years later, they were absolutely 100% correct!
And the best part of this is that even today, nobody can prove them wrong. And as time went one, and we see from the results of the measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background by PLANK, KOLBE, WMAP, from Sagnac, from Michelson/Morley & Michelson/Gale (this last one that one Mr. David Palm or the acknowledged Atheist McAndrew he hires to write for Geocentrism Debunked dot com absolutely refuses to acknowledge) and more, the Catholic Church’s stand has been vindicated. The opposition doesn’t have a case, except to escape into the la-la land of time/space contortions and multi-verses balancing on the backs of an infinite number of tortoises and elephants that we can never see or access, but trust them, it’s all there.
Johnno, when you promulgate heretical documents and heretical canon laws and an heretical cathecism, I say that is pretty formal and pretty obstinate. The conciliar clowns are way past manifest. This is not just a case of mistaken interpretations and a bad translation. I’m not sure where you draw the “formal obstinate” line.
The key to understanding Bellarmine’s teaching is to differentiate between occult heretic and manifest heretic. Who knew John xxiii, Paul vi, and all the following anti-popes were heretics when they were elected? Probably not many. But in each case it become clear over time to any Catholic that these men were indeed heretics. It was easily seen by their writings, spoken words, and actions. It also became clear in every case that these men had been heretics before election to the Papal office.
Therefore it is a straw man argument as to whether a Pope can become a heretic. The answer to that question is still not settled. But we don’t even need to raise it! These men, from John xxiii onward, all clearly manifested their heresy before being elected and thus were never Popes. Once a Catholic individual recognizes a heretic he has a clear mandate from Scripture on how to act toward him and Church teaching is clear that a manifest heretic cannot be a Pope since he is not a member of the body of Christ.
False traditionalists continue their straw man arguments about whether a Pope can become a heretic. They attempt to confuse the Faithful in an effort to keep them from becoming sedevacantists. They distort the true teaching of Bellarmine, Vatican Council l, and other Popes, theologians, and saints. Their goal is to at all costs prevent you from becoming sedevacantist. They may even be sincere and truth seeking for a time, but after a while they become blinded by prejudice and pride.
It is true that some Popes before 1958 seem to have made heretical statements, Pius xii being the worst. Some think he lost his office when making statements about contraception, baptism of desire, or his role in the disastrous liturgical commission, his “apparent” approval of Protocol 122/49, and his approval of the teaching of evolution.
The problem today is that all the hierarchy (are there any exceptions?) have not the Faith. The Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church. Anyone who believes a non Catholic can be saved is a heretic since the Church clearly teaches as a fundamental doctrine Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. It seems then that there is no way today to elect a Pope. It points to the Great Apostasy we are now in. Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!
If Bellarmine believed that geocentrism was integral to divine and Catholic faith, he would not have countenanced that a possible demonstration to the contrary would even be possible, as per his letter to Paolo Foscarini:
(Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.)
Bellarmine had doubts such a presentation or demonstration was possible, but did not consider it impossible. If geocentrism were fundamentally integral to the Catholic religion (such that being a Catholic and being a geocentrist are inseparable), he would have flatly denied the very possibility of a heliocentric demonstration, would he have not?
“As Bellarmine warned, and nobody can escape from. If the Fathers consensus interpretation of Scripture about the movements of the Earth and Sun are in error, even at a time where alternate views existed that they could have accommodated if this weren’t the case, then so too can they be doubted on every other interpretation of Scripture, and therefore so too does the Council of Trent err in making them dogmatically infallible, which means Church Councils and the Tradition the Holy See claims to protect is erroneous, which therefore also means the entire Tradition that the power of the Holy See and the successors of Peter rely upon are dubious, and therefore so too is the entire Christian faith”
I think you extrapolate too far, particularly when it comes to the Fathers’ interpretation on matters that do not tie into faith and morals. The Church has turned to them for guidance and insight on matters pertaining to our eternal salvation, and not necessarily for empirical scientific knowledge. In like manner, one must be careful not to mistake interpretations that are based on the natural presuppositions or natural philosophies of the day with those that are aimed at unveiling a revealed truth, as Fr. Melchior Inchofer, the anti-Galileo theological consultant for the Holy Office in 1633, attests:
(Regarding the Holy Fathers it must be noted that they presupposed, rather than argued, that the earth is at rest, in agreement with the common opinion of the philosophers), as cited from R. J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, p. 119.
Your logical implications do not necessarily follow.
“And the best part of this is that even today, nobody can prove them wrong. And as time went one, and we see from the results of the measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background by PLANK, KOLBE, WMAP, from Sagnac, from Michelson/Morley & Michelson/Gale (this last one that one Mr. David Palm or the acknowledged Atheist McAndrew he hires to write for Geocentrism Debunked dot com absolutely refuses to acknowledge) and more, the Catholic Church’s stand has been vindicated. The opposition doesn’t have a case, except to escape into the la-la land of time/space contortions and multi-verses balancing on the backs of an infinite number of tortoises and elephants that we can never see or access, but trust them, it’s all there.”
Given that the very title of the Michelson-Gale experiment was “The Effect of the **Earth’s Rotation** on the Velocity of Light”, why exactly would David Palm bring it up? It relates to a matter that already presupposes what some modern geocentrists deny (namely, that the universe rotates around an absolutely immobile Earth).
Besides, that experiment, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, and others (such as Airy’s failure) relate to attempts to discover the luminiferous aether (the hypothesized medium through which light traveled to reach Earth), but have results which are mutually contradictory to each other that still are explainable by the various refinements to relativity theory.
This post goes into even more detail on Sungenis and geocentrism in a rather comprehensive manner, but in very lay-friendly language: http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html
But again, to reiterate my point from earlier: cosmology as a scientific discipline is not integral to the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, and the overall physical structure of the universe is of rather low rank on my list of reasons for being a Catholic (if anything, the grandiose structure of the observable universe is strong natural evidence for the existence of a Creator).
That the Church Fathers were geocentrists is incidental, as their writings referencing such matters don’t seem to be in the category of a revealed truth that they’re passing on, as noted previously by Fr. Inchofer. And when it comes to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, we have been told by the Church that they are binding when it comes to matters of **faith and morals**:
“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–***in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine***, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…”
Otherwise, the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII would not have allowed the publication of non-geocentric works if geocentric cosmology was a revealed truth pertaining to the category of divine and Catholic faith.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Brief addendum to the above post: my last quotation (“Furthermore, in order to restrain…”) was from the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent.
This is all so tedious!
“He [Bellarmine] doesn’t say he [the manifest heretic formerly pope] can be judged by the opinion of men or by blogs or whatever … he says judged and punished by the Church.”
Pope Paul IV in addressing the analogous situation of a papal claimant who was elevated to the Papacy at a time when it was NOT known that he had previously embraced heresy or apostasy, but whose public deviation from the faith after elevation becomes well-known:
“Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering). ”
Pope Paul IV in his Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio effectively contradicts Grant when he explicitly authorizes by his words the faithful to withdraw their obedience from a Pope whose APPARENT PUBLIC DEVIATION FROM THE FAITH BECOMES KNOWN TO THEM AFTER HIS ELEVATION. Read in context of the entire document, it is clear that Pope Paul IV authorized the faithful to withdraw their obedience in such a situation EVEN IF THE CHURCH HAD NOT YET ACTED.
If the false Papal Claimant CANNOT COMMAND THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE FAITHFUL LAYPERSON WHO AS A MATTER OF OBJECTIVE FACT HAS CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED THE FALSE PAPAL CLAIMANT’S APPARENT DEVIATION FROM THE FAITH HE CANNOT COMMAND THE OBEDIENCE OF ANY OF THE FAITHFUL. This is merely the result of the law of non-contradiction! The determination that the Pope is a manifest heretic or apostate DOESN’T TURN ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION, BUT ON THE COMPETENCY OF THE PERSON.
Anyone educated in the faith is competent to recognize heresy or apostasy on many relatively straightforward articles of the faith.
After Vatican I, there is no agency of the Church that is subordinate to the Pope that has jurisdiction over the Pope to try him on questions of faith or morals while still recognizing him as Pope. Thus, taken together, Cum Ex and Vatican I establish an outcome that AS SOON AS THE LOWEST AND MOST HUMBLE LAYPERSON WHO IS NONETHELESS COMPETENT IN MATTERS OF THE FAITH CORRECTLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE POPE HAS APPARENTLY PUBLICLY DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH FROM A TIME PRIOR TO HIS ELEVATION THE POPE’S AUTHORITY GOES POOF IN A CLOUD OF SATANIC SMOKE AND DISAPPEARS. Also, Pope Paul IV establishes that the dilatory behavior of the hierarchy in no way preserves the authority of the false claimant in any way since he authorizes the faithful to withdraw their obedience as soon as it appears to them that the false papal claimant has deviated from the faith.
In support of my position that the current Papal claimant has given all faithful Catholics grounds to withdraw their obedience from him under the teachings of Pope Paul IV I advance three examples of the deviation of so-called “Pope Francis” from the faith:
1. In an easily found photograph, so-called “Pope Francis” is depicted lighting a Menorah candle while he actively participates in a non-Catholic worship service. From this photograph, and since St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that we must judge from the objective reality of a person’s actions, and not from a subjective understanding, I conclude so-called “Pope Francis” is either a Jew or a religious indifferentist.
2. In easily found news accounts, so-called “Pope Francis” is described as signing an agreement with the representative of a non-Catholic so-called “religion”, wherein the agreement recites that the Catholic Church agrees that the Almighty wills the diversity of “religions”. From these news accounts and St. Robert’s teaching, I conclude so-called “Pope Francis” is a religious indifferentist.
3. In easily found news accounts and photographs, so-called “Pope Francis” is described and depicted as participating in a pagan “religious” service featuring a pagan female fertility deity. From these news accounts and St. Robert’s teaching, I conclude Pope Francis is either a neo-pagan or a religious indifferentist.
Religious indifferentism is a heretical belief that all religions are more or less good, and implicitly denies that the Church established by Our Lord teaches the true faith and is the unique ark of salvation. It is noted that the first example cited above dates from a time prior to the elevation of so-called “Pope Francis”. So it has become apparent to me that Pope Francis was a religious indifferentist from a time prior to his elevation all the way up to the current time. How anyone can believe he is a faithful Catholic at this late date is beyond me.
I am at the point where I no longer presume the good faith of all who contend on these matters. Would it be too hard to believe that those contending on these matters are controlled opposition? What does the controlled opposition preserve? The STATUS QUO, which permits so-called “Pope Francis” to harm and mislead the faithful! Remember, the enemies of the Church believe it is within their power to destroy it!
To Memento Mori 2 & all men of goodwill,
Is there not a Catholic maxim which states that we ought first to assume that any given Catholic writing be understood in a Catholic sense consistent with the teachings of the Church unless we have good reason to believe otherwise? That ought to apply here.
The whole problematic passage is as follows:
“It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.”
Consider first the broader context of the work in question: The curious statement seemingly comes out of nowhere and is made in the context of a document praising the poet Dante for “depict[ing] the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.” In other words, Benedict XV’s clear overall intention in writing was to praise Dante for effectively relating Catholic reality through a work of fiction. He was not intending to make a doctrinal statement about heliocentrism.
Consider the first and last sentences in the excerpt above which surround the problematic (bolded) passage. What we can infer from these is the likely intention of the pontiff, that is, to use this hypothetical aside about still being able to relate all the truths of Catholicism in the context of the fictional heliocentric model to bolster the overall point he was trying to make throughout the entire paragraph: namely, that Dante related Catholic truths about Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven effectively through a work of speculative fiction. “If the progress of science showed…still the fundamental principle remained…” His point is to make a hypothetical comparison: Even if Dante’s works are fiction “…still the fundamental principle remained” just as “[even] if the progress of science showed later that…still the fundamental principle remained…” The only way to make sense of this abrupt change of topic is that of a comparison between a hypothetical and a work of fiction. Without this connection, the sudden shift in subject makes no sense.
Further proof of this interpretation is that the Latin part in the middle of the questionable passage “risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove” which is often omitted by those claiming Benedict XV was denying geocentrism, is a reference to Dante’s writings and a direct quote from his work Paradiso, meaning “it shines in one part more and less elsewhere”. Given the context, Benedict XV is clearly arguing that even if heliocentrism was hypothetically proven true, God’s glory would still be present there in this speculative fictional model. The fault of Benedict XV here was failing to make his intended message clear due to poor wording in an effort to make a witty reference to Dante and assuming that an explicit explanation of his aside was unnecessary. Let us move on to the other parts of the curious passage which also supports Benedict XV’s orthodoxy on this topic.
Given the immediate context, it seems that his controversial aside about heliocentrism was meant to be entirely hypothetical. Consider the first line of the passage: “If the progress of science showed later that…” One can only interpret this as being hypothetical or speculative since he begins with a condition that has not yet been met (and he nowhere concedes that it ever could be met). To paraphrase, he is essentially arguing: “We’re not wrong, but hypothetically, even if we were proven wrong on this point, it wouldn’t inherently disprove Catholicism because all the truths of our religion could still be understood as true if we adopt a heliocentric model for the sake of argument.” The most controversial part is as follows: “…and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought…” Taken of itself, Benedict XV appears to plainly be open to the idea that the Church could be wrong about heliocentrism, as if it could be proven true in the future. HOWEVER, one must again consider the context. This latter passage is not a new sentence. It is connected to the first clearly hypothetical thought by a semi-colon which is used grammatically to indicate [a] that two ideas are closely linked and [b] ought to be considered together as parts of a whole, even if the two parts could stand as complete sentences grammatically. This is proof that the second half of the sentence must be considered in conjunction with the first—which is irrefutably hypothetical. (This important point which would have been obvious to most readers at the time is lost on many today who aren’t taught and/or never bother to learn proper grammar. For once, thank goodness for pedantic Grammar Nazis such as myself.)
What on earth possessed him to include this here or to use such ambiguous wording, I can only assume was an over-eager attempt to shoe-horn in a Dante reference. Considering the whole document is gushing over Dante, that would again explain this bizarre aside into an otherwise unrelated topic. But this passage, while imprudent, isn’t a clear public manifestation of heresy, material or formal. Furthermore, St. Cdl. Bellarmine, who clearly believed heliocentrism to be formally heretical, also hypothetically considered the arguments for it, just as St. Thomas Aquinas hypothetically considered arguments against the existence of God in order to refute them in the Summa. Therefore, in charity, we must assume that Benedict XV was also entertaining a false idea here to prove or make a point (albeit poorly).
To conclude, the evidence is clear: One ought not to take a clearly hypothetical aside written by a pontiff in a work on a completely separate topic as definitive proof of a public denial of a Catholic doctrine. In prudence and charity, we must assume that he meant this in a purely hypothetical sense. As the letter written by Pope Honorius I clearly shows, the Holy Ghost does not protect the popes from imprudently writing something orthodox in a manner that can be misinterpreted by heretics or, in this case, well-meaning Catholics trying to make sense of the most grave crisis the Church has weathered. Was the inclusion of this aside by Benedict XV imprudent? Without a doubt. Could it have been worded better? Absolutely. Is it definitive proof of at least material heresy taught by a pontiff to the entire Church prior to Vatican II? Not at all. I have proved otherwise here (and I hope my arguments prove compelling to those who will have taken the time to read them).
TL;DR: The overall context of the work which was on a completely unrelated topic, the immediate context of the paragraph, the first clause of the sentence in question, the grammatical conjunction between the clauses causing the confusion, the Latin reference relating the sentence in question back to the original topic, and the sentences that precede and follow the questionable passage all support an orthodox interpretation of the Pontiff in question rather than an acquiescence to a condemned heresy. No anti-pope here.
Sincerely in Christ,
Kyle of Canada
Christe Rex: adveniat regnum Tuum. Maria, Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis. Amen.
I would also add the entire paragraph that follows the debated passage as proof of Benedict XV’s orthodoxy, since paragraph 5 clearly expresses and praises a traditional understanding of Church’s teaching on Sacred Scripture. Consider the following excerpt which at least implicitly contradicts the idea that the pontiff could have been relaxing the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism, a condemned heresy, out of nowhere in paragraph 4, then immediately turn around and laud Dante for his defense of a traditional understanding of Sacred Scripture literally two sentences later in paragraph 5:
“5. But among the truths that shine out in the triple poem of Alighieri as in his other works We think that these things may serve as teaching for men of our times. That Christians should pay highest reverence to the Sacred Scripture and accept what it contains with perfect docility he proclaims when he says that ‘Though many are the writers of the Divine Word nevertheless there is but one Dictator, God, Who has deigned to show us His goodwill through the pens of many’ (Mon. III, 4). Glorious expression of a great truth. Again, when he says that ‘The Old and the New Testament, prescribed for eternity, as the Prophet says, contain “spiritual teachings transcending human reason,” given “by the Holy Ghost who by means of the Prophets and sacred writings, through Jesus Christ coeternal Son of God and through His disciples revealed the supernatural truth necessary for us”‘ (Mon. III, 3, 16)…And no less reverence he pays to ‘those venerable Great Councils the presence of Christ in which no one of the faithful doubts’; and great is his esteem for ‘writings of the Doctors, Augustine and the others, and if any one doubt that they were aided by the Holy Ghost either he has not seen their fruits or if he has seen he has not tasted’ (Mon. III, 3).”
Either Benedict XV flatly contradicted himself within the span of two sentences (extremely implausible), or he was orthodox and consistent, but is being misunderstood (in part because he conveyed his meaning poorly) but mostly due to the line in question appearing to convey a completely different meaning if read plainly without the context in which it was written and intended. All the best.
“….Or at the very least, that despite being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, [these popes] made decisions that greatly led to undermining the Catholic Faith.
Regardless of whether one accepts Heliocentrism or Geocentrism, the fact facing us is that either –
a) The Holy Spirit and the Papal office were misinterpreting Scripture from 33 AD upwards to around the 1800s.
b) The Holy Spirit and the Papal office were misinterpreting Scripture from around the 1800s until today.”
How are these choices anything but proof that the Catholic Church *is* defectible and has already defected? Where does the Catholic Church teach that a pope can make decisions that “greatly lead to undermining the Faith”?
The other choice is that you and others are wrong in your interpretation of what happened at that time in Church history.
A Simple Man: I also find it interesting that no Catechism explicitly teaches Geocentrism. If this was something that all Catholics are expected to believe to be in good standing with the Church, then why don’t the catechisms teach it? Wouldn’t this be a basic and essential teaching to catechize our children? I think the perfect place for it would be when the catechisms speak of God as Creator of Heaven and Earth. But it’s not there.
“So, James do you believe that the popes who allowed non-geocentric theories are true popes?”
All I can say about that, since it’s a difficult question, is that in the past two centuries this issue and many other issues were not being addressed that were very important and desperately needed to be. The traditional Church’s teaching on usury was another example of where Popes were remiss to strictly enforce what the Church has always taught was forbidden, that what was once a mortal sin, not even one hundredth of a part, is not a mortal sin now? What about openly referring to Protestants as “Christians”, which all Popes up to Pius X didn’t and would never do?
I wouldn’t think that any of them pre-’58 were formal heretics, but there was definitely some material heresy at work there. I don’t think that any formal heresy was evident and manifest, and could be firmly established until Roncalli, which by then was an invalidly elected man.
There was not some sudden chop in 1958, it was a slow decline for a quite a while that lead up to it.
TomA: “Johnno, when you promulgate heretical documents and heretical canon laws and an heretical cathecism, I say that is pretty formal and pretty obstinate. The conciliar clowns are way past manifest. This is not just a case of mistaken interpretations and a bad translation. I’m not sure where you draw the “formal obstinate” line.”
Exactly. Nothing prior to Vatican II is analogous.
Paul VI merely explicates what is necessarily true; anything else would be to act against God and the eternal unchangeable Holy Faith, knowable to all. Faith and reason obliges us to avoid public pertinacious heretics.
Sorry – Paul IV.
Sorry – Paul IV.
As far as the 3 deviations you listed against Pope Francis that make him a heretic just take a look back about 40-50 years ago and you could see that Arch. LeFebvre was accurately listing the same type deviations, probably even more and far worse, about two other popes not named Francis so I still don’t understand why Francis is the only pope ever being discussed as being automatically excommunicated. Makes no sense.
Anyways, I personally believe the “invincible ignorance” or “no fault” salvation first taught by Pope Pius IX in 1854 (no other Pope before him ever taught for any reason at all including “I.I.” that one could die outside of the Catholic Church and still attain salvation as far as I know, in fact, they taught the exact opposite) is at the root of all the errors or heresies stemming out of VII like religious indifferentism, universal salvation and liberty of conscience. Every Pope and teaching since has been tainted and always will be unless we get back to what the Popes and Church taught about salvation before 1854 like the 3 infallible dogmas proclaimed by 3 different Popes with no mention of I.I. or any other possibility of salvation outside of the Church at all and I honestly believe until that happens none of this other stuff really matters that much anyway.
You’re obviously right Johnno.
Johnbilbee, You believe a heresy, that has nothing to do with the problem of Jorge or VaticanII. The Church has always taught Baptism by Desire and Blood. St. Dismas is one example. You just do not believe what the Church teaches. Johnno has also left the reservation. Saying that a Pope, going -well if it can be proven that the Earth rotates around the sun that makes no difference to our belief in the Creation? That’s not a heresy, you are being ridiculous and I think maybe you are both intending to be ridiculous. I’m not backing forth on heresy nor on astronomy, i just want to point out that these are foolish red herrings.
A most interesting debate lads. There are a few gaps that I hope I can fill in. First let me quote the following:
‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’ (Taylor Marshall, October 4, 2019 (LifeSiteNews)
Yes, here Taylor Marshall gets Church history correct but he does not know why or he would have made reference to it.
Briefly, if one can be brief about the Galileo affair when over 6,000 books and countless essays have been written up on the subject, it was this affair that divided opinion within the Church that led to the ‘modernising’ of everything Catholic. One could say the supernatural Catholic faith was at its peak after the Council of Trent where it laid down its decrees, one of them being that when all of the Fathers agree on an interpretation of Scripture that is an irreversible dogma. One of these unanimous beliefs was the revelation in Scripture that describes without doubt an orbiting sun around the Earth.
In 1616 it was the fixed sun of a heliocentric solar system that was defined as heresy. That is all, nothing else. No particular order was forbidden, just that the sun orbited the Earth. That the sun was at the centre of the universe was not defined as heresy, just that the Earth was there based on faith.
As Johnno said correctly the 1616 decree defining and declaring Galileo’s heliocentrism formal heresy because it contradicted the Scriptures and the unanimous opinion of all the Fathers was papal, referred to as ‘irreversible’ at the time. This infallibility was confirmed at Galileo’s trial in 1633.
What is not well known is what happened in 1820 with regard to the problem of the 1616 decree when Fr Olivieri, head man at the Holy Office of the time, was convinced that the Earth was proven to orbit a fixed sun. Fr Anfossi told him the 1616 decree was irreversible and therefore heliocentrism couldn’t be true. Fr Olivieri agreed the 1616 decree was in today’s language an infallible decree. So, how then did the Catholic Church get past this decree? Well the fact that Napoleon had robbed the records of the Galileo case from the Vatican then meant nobody could check on the facts. What Olivieri said was that the non-reformable 1616 decree found a VIOLENT orbiting Earth formal heresy but in 1820 science had proven it was a NON-VIOLENT orbiting Earth, so the heliocentrism ‘according to modern astronomers’ was not breaking an infallible decree.
Another aspect of the U-turn was that in 1796 the Nebular theory received approval by the freemasons of the Royal Society of London. It was these freemasons who held Isaac Newton’s gravity to be proof of heliocentrism. The Nebular theory held that their solar system evolved from atoms. In other words, the heliocentrism adopted by pope Pius VII in 1820, and the removal of all banned books by Pope Gregory XVI in 1835, was an evolved one. You could not separate the two. With that, no pope of the Catholic Church thereafter could define any attached evolution theory as heresy. The Devil had fooled the elect, and all supernatural belief in God’s creation. It was after that that theologians began to reinterpret Genesis in particular, for example John Henry Newman with his ‘Development of Doctrine’ in the light of science showing churchmen the true meaning of Scripture. When Pope Leo XIII wrote his encyclical Providentissimus deus in 1893 to try to stop the modernism even he inferred science had shown the 1616 decree was a wrong interpretation.
Finally, caught up in their MATERIAL heresy popes had now to try to make all those evolution theories supernatural again by claiming God was behind the Big Bang and the evolution of all. Meanwhile, it can be said that the credibility of the heretical heliocentrism and evolution theories were assisted by those running the Catholic Church for the last 150 years as Taylor Marshall said.
Now there were points made earlier that I will address another time. Most important of all is that my investigation found not one pope challenged the infallible 1616 decree. Giving an imprimatur to a heliocentric book in ignorance is not a papal act. To find this throughout the centuries was proof for me that the Holy Ghost made sure that 1616 decree was never abrogated, proving His divine guidance was active throughout the affair.
Very good points made Red, these were huge mistakes and errors, and became a turning point in history.
We see the end results today of putting that lower study of material “science” (and even worse, man’s “speculative science” when it comes to cosmogony) over Divine Revelation and Holy Scripture inevitably led to the thousand errors of modernization. Divine Creation is being denied, and very few will face that reality, or acknowledge it’s importance.
They all continue labour under a false premise.
Ok Lads, let us fill in a few more gaps.
When the popes fell for the lie that heliocentrism was proven, their loss of faith in the Church of 1616 and 1633 changed Catholicism. After the U-turn of 1741-1835 every ploy to make the whole affair look orthodox can still be found in millions of websites, books, Vatican II and the 1981-1992 John Paul II Commission on the Galileo case. Having studied the history of it for many years now I was shocked to find those men who run the Church were and still are no different than any other institution involved in covering their tracts and deceiving those who trust them. pope Pius VII actually decreed that anyone who challenged their heliocentrism ‘according to modern astronomers’ was to be punished.
After that not one pope addressed this anti-Catholic U-turn and left it up to the clergy and laymen to think up any version of the affair they needed to make the 1616 decree look provisional and as Cardinal Newman said of the 1616 decree that it ‘decided next to nothing’.
In 1870 for example, a Rev. W. W. Roberts, another who believed heliocentrism was proven, in his book The Pontifical Decrees.., showed the 1616 decree was infallible without doubt. He concluded from this that the dogma of infallibility of Vatican I had been proven wrong. Now wouldn’t you think that this should have been corrected by Rome and his book put on the index with all those other heretical books of the time? Well Rome decided to say NOTHING and let any Tom, Dick or Harry reply with their version of the case. Indeed one of these Ward, got his opinion into the Catholic encyclopedia.
Now let us address a few of these anti-infallible reasons accumulated by the Galilean apologists. There is one above that goes like this:
‘If Bellarmine believed that geocentrism was integral to divine and Catholic faith, he would not have countenanced that a possible demonstration to the contrary would even be possible, as per his letter to Paolo Foscarini:’
Here we have a much used ploy, trying to misinterpret a 1615 letter from Bellarmine to try to undermine a papal decree taken ONE YEAR LATER. Bellarmine was addressing what Galileo was claiming in 1615, that he had proof for an orbiting Earth around a fixed sun. Now let us see the absurdity of using this ploy. If Bellarmine said ‘if there were proof that Jesus was not born miraculously then the dogma of the Virgin Birth would have to be reinterpreted. Could anyone disagree with him? Does that not make it look like even dogmas like the Virgin Birth were not certain? You see the dangers that resulted from the Galilean reformation, nothing is safe from such ploys..
Here is another. A Protestant, Rheticus, who helped Copernicus with his heliocentric book coined the quip ‘the Bible was not a science book, not a book that teaches us how the heavens go,’ Well after the U-turn, that became more of a Catholic dogma than the 1616 decree. Pope Leo XIII suggested it in his encyclical on Scripture, Pope Benedict XV said that was not true in his encyclical, and Pope Pius XII said it was in his encyclical. Pope John Paul II repeated it as though it was a dogma. Perhaps now you can see where Modernism entered the womb of the Church, popes contradicting one another in encyclicals.
Which leads us back to the 1616 decree. After the U-turn it had to be put into this new invented Galilean dogma; a matter of science, and not a matter of faith. Now if it were a matter of science then it could not have been a matter of faith. Science proves or falsifies something whereas faith needs faith to believe in it. With regard to the Galileo case, the truth did not come from churchmen, they were too busy trying to protect their U-turn. It came from a scientist in the following way:
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ — Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18
Do you get it, the 1616 decree was a definition on a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Now have you any idea of the consequences of such a distinction? Based on their rejection of the 1616 decree completely in 1835, when popes allowed a metaphysical revelation of Scripture, defined and decreed as such by Pope Paul V be ignored under the illusion it was proven false by science, they began the Galilean reformation that not only removed the geocentric revelation of Scripture be rejected, and taken away all references to it in Catholic history, as thought it never happened, but then they allowed their false science theories to replace the complete metaphysical and supernatural belief in Creation taught and held by the Catholic faith from its beginning. Once this modernism engulfed Catholicism, faith in nearly everything, including the real presence in Holy Communion, faded away.
Very succinctly encapsulated, “Red”, or, perhaps, “Rua”?!
Well said Melanie. Faith is assent of Divinely revealed Truths taught by Christ and passed along by the authority of the Church. The orbit and movements of celestial bodies is a natural objective truth that science has yet to prove. Only theories exist at this time. St Dismas was never baptized, neither was St Joseph or the Blessed Virgin. Nor were the Holy Innocents. There are countless saints that were catechumens and martyred before receiving baptism. There is no logical reasoning with Feeneyites. They pick one or two documents and disregard the rest of Church tradition to proclaim their dogmatic error. Sounds very familiar doesn’t it?
They, like Steve Skojec who just said, “It’s not impossible. St. Peter was an apostate,” want to have a religion that is not necessarily true. They want Jorge the apostate to be their pope, so they lie about the Popes of the Catholic Church, claiming many have been heretics and apostates. I hope you all convert to Catholicism boys but you commit sacrilege by making these claims about Saints of the Church and you are following a false religion. The Catholic faith is true and sure and you’re quickly passing though honest mistake into heresy and blasphemy. I pray you can swallow your pride and stop it.
Hi Melanie and Tom A, if you read my comment it was about so-called “Invincible Ignorance” not at all about Baptism of Desire /Blood which are two other totally different subjects and I’m not “intending to be ridiculous” but stating what I honestly believe. Whether I’m right or wrong nothing neither of you two have stated has changed my mind because neither of you address the issue of Invincible Ignorance.
Also to Tom, again as far as I know Fr. Feeney was never excommunicated for his teachings but for not showing up to defend his teachings and even if he was condemned for his teachings his excommunication was lifted before he died without him ever changing what he taught. So maybe the Holy Ghost is trying to tell us something.
As far as the orbit since it can’t be proven which is true why wouldn’t we believe what the Bible, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church believe since as Johnno has pointed out with overwhelming evidence they felt it was pretty important to our faith to believe that the earth was at the center and I agree with them 100%. Science can never prove how the world was created either yet we believe what the Bible says in regards to that so in the same way we should believe what is says about the location of the earth.
But again my main point here was about ‘invincible ignorance” which two words no one here even mentioned in their response. Thank you
Again, thanks for taking the time to post. I hope it provokes many to realize the importance of this subject.
Some final comments lads. 2Vermont above demonstrates the effects of the Galilean Reformation where the post 1835 heliocentric minded churchmen have had to hide the 1616 decree confirming geocentrism was revealed in the Bible as the order of the world. Here is another example of the disappearance of Pope Paul V’s infallible dogma.
In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma (400-1950) there are 35 decrees issued by the same Holy Office from 1602 to 1949 recorded in detail. The only one based with a ruling of formal heresy, the 1616 decree, is not recorded or mentioned among them
The denial of this dogma of biblical geocentrism continues today in all but one Catholic forum, CIF. I have been banned for telling the truth that not even traditional Catholics want to know. The SSPX have denied it and even supported a Fr Robinson with his book full of modern faith and science corruptions. The usual response is ‘Are you accusing the popes since 1835 at least of being heretics?’ When I reply I am not accusing them, Pope Paul V said that, three forums banned me. Now as you know sedevacantists are terrified of the Galileo case, especially the Dimond brothers so they deny what Pope Urban VIII confirmed and indeed the Holy Office of 1820 admitted, that the 1616 decree was an absolute definition and not reformable. You see if these popes were true heretics, then, according to the sedevacantists, we would not have had a true pope since then. Sedevancantism began at Vatican Ii for them, not 1820. These guys like to let on they are the ultimate Catholic, yet have no problem deny the 1616 decree, a decree never proven wrong.
My research found the popes of 1820-35 were convinced heliocentrism was a proven fact. But careful study shows all they did was allow heliocentric books to be taken out of the Index. They were told the infallible 1616 decree was safe and remained and when they gave their imprimatur attached the following condition ‘according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.’ Their heresy was therefore material, and the sedevacantists can relax, for their intention was to correct not to allow a heresy. Nevertheless, why hadn’t these popes the fasith of Fr Anfossi and others? That is the mystery.
Next post I will address Pope Benedict XV’s 1921: In Praeclara Summorum, said by the Dimond sedevacantists to be proof that the 1616 decree was not a dogma.
What you say is true. These issues are real, and can’t be ignored. Good post.
Johnbilbee, actually my beef is not so much with Fr Feeney as it is with the mentality of those who today defend him. As I understand it, II simply means that one cannot be held liable of the sin of being outside of the Church if one never heard of the Church. II never saves anyone, it simply means a soul will not be damned for that particular reason. There are many other reasons souls are damned and II does not give one a free pass on Natural Law. We should hope that all souls are given the graces during our lifetime for salvation. Even those who are invincibly ignorant. Because of sin, all men are justly deserving of damnation. It is only through God’s Mercy that some will be saved. The Church and the Sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation but God is not limited and may choose to save a soul outside the visible Church through some extraordinary means. Then again, He may not.
Pope Pius IX 1846-1878
Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
11. Pope Pius XII 1939-1958
Mystical Body of Christ, June 29, 1943:
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
When they would give that disclaimer to their imprimatur with the following condition ‘according to the common opinion of modern astronomers’, it immediately begs the question; why would they accept, or give credence to, “the opinions of modern astronomers”, over the Revelation of God in Scripture? Or Trent? Or Papal decrees?
That’s really stretching it. It again explicitly confesses that Scriptures does not teach material science (which of itself is heresy), or God has not revealed all truth to His Church, or needs it to be constantly updated & supplemented by modern, super-scientific, self-enlightened men. It shows a genuine loss of faith in Revelation.
It’s ridiculous. The Church Fathers had it wrong after all. All hail the “revelation” of modern evolving men.
The definition of Modernistic Positivism btw, is to separate God and faith, from science and truth, as you pointed out above. That statement given to justify that imprimatur is just pure Modernism, plain and simple. No, the “trads” don’t get off the hook on that one.
Indifferentism and Skepticism is what Modernism leads to, and the denial of Divine Truth leads to despair.
Yes James O, it was a test of faith at the time. My hero Fr Anfossi in his account kept the faith amid accusations from Fr Olivieri of being an ignorant man who dismisses the scientific findings of astronomers and philosophers for many years beforehand. Anfossi held the 1616 decree to be absolute and as a consequence could not be proven false. Olivieri threw all the so-called proofs before him bu Anfossi said they were not proofs.
Before I go on let me say that to understand the history of the Galileo case one has to study all the astronomy and physics involved from Ptolemy, to Copernicus, to Galileo and Kepler, to Newton and the thorn in his side Domenico Cassini, then on to the 1870 Airy test, the M&M test of 1887 and then Einsteins attempts to save heliocentrism from those two falsifications. Cassini was what I call God’s astronomer who used real science to show the errors of Kepler and then Newton, not only in their elliptical orbits but in the shape of the Earth and finally showed how orbits are on electrical paths and fit into the mathematics found in nature.
But back to the mystery of iniquity, how did Satan fool so many up to pope level? Here is a comment by a very learned lady:
‘Having studied the history of the 1741-1835 Holy Office ‘decisions’ [to take heliocentric books off the Index of heretical books], I think we would all agree the current miasma does not constitute a formal teaching of Copernicanism by the Magisterium. Nonetheless, a very efficacious appearance of official backtracking (not to mention the appearance of a perceived admission by Rome of having made a grievous error on a matter involving interpretation of Divine Revelation) has been the principal cause of incalculable deleterious effects. Quoting Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris: “Who so turns his attention to the bitter strife of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them.” We may say that [Galileo’s reformation] with its manifold implications for both Faith and Reason constitutes the principle error by which the world is now fallen into so low a state. Therefore, while we should strongly affirm that the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church, they have nevertheless prevailed upon countless poor souls who have been damned in no small part because they came to believe, through science falsely so called, that Divine Revelation was not merely irrelevant, but positively mythology, which is, by definition, worthy of no intellectual assent upon authority. From 1741 the faith of the Churchmen grew cold as they began to doubt the motives for credibility of the Divine Revelation. Had they been men of unswerving faith [like Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825) Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome, 1820] they would have gladly risen to the challenge presented by the emerging scientism establishment. From 1616 onwards, Jesus Christ threw down the gauntlet to his ministers. They had well within their power the means of combating the two super errors of Copernicanism and Darwinism. As we can now agree – science has never falsified the Revelation. What we see in the churchmen, therefore, is not ultimately a problem in the rational natural order. It is ultimately a problem in the supernatural order. They lost their faith through the art of temptation and deception [as Albert Pike described]. They were tempted to believe in another kind of revelation – that which comes through demons. In this they are no different than Adam and Eve. They began to believe the report of [pseudo] science on its own authority. They gave human reason a higher decree of credibility than Divine Revelation. This is a sin against Faith. Admittedly, faith builds upon nature. And we may conjecture that had not the churchmen first fallen into the errors of naturalism and rationalism, which have for their express purpose the annihilation of the supernatural order, they would have succumbed to the metaphysical errors that propound absurdly as the truth. First went their faith, and then went their reason. We tear off the roof to get to the foundation. [Who cannot] affirm that “the granting of Imprimaturs [in 1741 and 1820 to heliocentric books] is not an exercise of the teaching office, the divinely protected office of the sacred magisterium.” We say Deo Gratias, but we also lament because the innumerable damned who were/are not able to make such subtle distinctions. [Some] say that the issue is now coming to a head. We think [they] are correct. We think the cat is out of the bag now. We think the conspiracy of all conspiracies is shortly to become common knowledge. You say these falsifications will expose the Church to an Earthquake of shocking proportions because it will force a full and honest examination of the process whereby the magisterium at Vatican II imposed upon the faithful an obligation of “religious submission” to teachings that were predicated upon an attempted harmonization of apostolic and Catholic metaphysics, with inherently contradictory Darwinian and relativistic metaphysics. Contrast this with the teaching found in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Council I. There is an extremely interesting defined doctrinal decree articulated in that beautiful document. It reads: “All faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.” There is one error – the principal and primary error, the source of all the hellish lies and deceits swallowing up [those in] Church and State, and the first principle of its sterile offspring evolutionism – that falls under this magisterial pronouncement; and it is the error of Galileoism. By definition this error is science falsely so-called, is contrary to the Catholic Faith and has been formally condemned [as heresy] by the Church. We know that Vatican Council I is an unfinished business. It was violently curtailed by the onset of the Franco-Prussian war. What it did accomplish, however, was magnificent. Most think of its importance in terms of its authoritative definition of papal infallibility. I see its import under another aspect. It firmly establishes the bedrock principles of the two highest sciences – Sacred Theology and Natural Philosophy, and in particular Metaphysics. These principles, in turn, are the weaponry of the true and efficacious counter offensive. These are principles upon which we will rest the full restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences, which will, in its turn restore the proper orders of Faith and Reason. The principle errors are not merely doctrinal. They are philosophical and metaphysical. Metaphysical error causes doctrinal error. Faith builds upon nature. Philosophy is known as the Preamble or Disposition of the Faith. As Pope Leo XIII affirms: If the intellect sins at all, the will follows. If the intellect is dark, then the soul is not disposed to receive the motives of credibility. The purpose of the Church is twofold: Define and reaffirm the particular immutable principles necessary for the age, and then apply them by way of canons and condemnations. Vatican II failed on both accounts. It failed to restate and redefine the most important principles of both Faith and Reason necessary for this age, and it failed to make appropriate condemnations. Many believed that the fruit of Vatican II would be, in addition to the long-awaited definition of the Dogma of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, an official condemnation of communism. But this was impossible because within the ambiguities of the Council documents are found the poorly concealed, erroneous principles of Marxism, relativism, and evolutionism. Satan does not caste out Satan. Vatican Council I is still on hold. It has not yet been consummated. The principles it reaffirmed are yet to be applied to particular errors. When we finally see the great healing Council, the great Flood Council, and the great Cadaver Synod as some call it, the great work of the Church that will away the filth of false science like a new Deluge, we will see the principles of Vatican I explicitly applied to the two errors of Galileo and Darwin.’
Let us now address Pope Benedict XV’s contribution. He forbid the idea that the Bible only taught things pertaining to redemption that all the Galileans were saying. He said the Bible can teach what it says. Then there is his 1921: In Praeclara Summorum, The Dimond sedevacantists used what he said in this letter to confirm the 1616 decree was not a dogma. Here is the story:
Few today are even aware that Pope Benedict XV, on April 30th, 1921, just one year after his teaching encyclical on how the Scriptures reveal all truth, wrote a different kind of papal letter, this one praising the writings of the Catholic poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). Famous for his The Divine Comedy, sometimes called ‘the Summa in verse,’ described earlier in our chapter seven, a poetry divided into a journey of three parts, Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory) and Paradiso (Heaven), Dante’s words reflect medieval Catholicism, when the Catholic faith had reached it peak of blessed understanding. This of course included the doctrine of Geocentrism, revealed in Scripture and visible to all as the creation that God chose so that man might have a greater evidence of Him.
In his Letter the Pope says:
It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in such a way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.’ — Encyclical on Dante. To Professors, Students of Literature and Learning in the Catholic World
It has been asserted by certain men that the above shows the 1616 edict was not an irreversible (infallible) decree because Pope Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. Remember the infallible 1616 decree defined a fixed sun as formal heresy and not the position of the Earth. In fact the Pope never mentions the Sun, only refers to the Earth, planets and stars. Moreover, what the Pope said was prefixed with ‘If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation.’ The Pope was of course referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity of his time that said a geocentric universe was as viable as a heliocentric one because empirical science could not definitively prove one or the other. So this letter was not ruling out a revealed geocentric truth, the Pope just takes a neutral stand on the physical location of the Earth in the universe in context of Dante’s elaborate poem The Divine Comedy. Thus Pope Benedict XV wrote the Earth ‘may not’ be the centre of the universe rather than ‘is not the centre of the universe.’ Given the fact that in Benedict XV’s time heliocentrism was still considered the scientific truth by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say ‘is not the centre.’ One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the physical heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ insisted on by the Holy Office in 1820.
Now let us advance to the existentialist mystic, phenomenologist, modernist, Koran kissing ecumenist and apologist supreme, Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to describe himself when Bishop of Krakow, the pope aptly named ‘De Labore Solis’ (About the Work of the Sun) according to St Malachy’s prophetic list of allegorical names of future popes given to Pope Innocent II in 1139. Here is what this genius said in his address at the Galileo commission findings.
‘11) In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the Earth or the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points have the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them…’
In paragraph eleven we see Pope John Paul II was well aware of Einstein’s theories of relativity of the universe that do not exclude a geocentric order of the universe, a fact that Walter van der Kamp reminded Rome of in his letter, a relativity that does not allow man’s science to prove what the order of the universe is, a fact revealed in the Book of Job (38:31-33). Towering over all in this speech however was the absurd deduction on the part of the Pope who said: ‘this observation [relativity], it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate.’ One minute the Pope acknowledges Einstein’s admittance that relativity prevails in the universe, that man’s science cannot determine anything for certain, but then he infers that Galileo’s position – that the order of the universe is heliocentric – was nevertheless ‘valid,’ that is, legally correct according to any dictionary. Such then are the lengths churchmen will go to, have to go to nowadays to try to defend that infamous U-turn.
This then is how the Copernican equilibrium works, and the illusion wins every time, no matter the multiple contradictions in such thinking and the rejection of the divine input into the matter of how God created His universe.
You couldn’t make it up, could you, and these are the men running the Catholic Church. No wonder it is in freefall all over the world, except St Peter’s Square that is.
Be very careful as you tread in very dangerous waters here, as in this time of the desolation of Antichrist. Amen. What Rand wrote above is blatant as patent heresy, as copied now here:
“Therefore it is a straw man argument as to whether a Pope can become a heretic. The answer to that question is still not settled. But we don’t even need to raise it!”
He then goes on later to site the Vatican Council, which he affronts in that statement of his, just copied for your edification. James_o, the Vatican Council definitively teaches that the Holy Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, simply cannot fall into heresy, nor could he ever have throughout the bimillenial history of Holy Mother Church then, and of course, as this truth was known, as is all truth by the Vicar of Christ, who shares in the Mind of Blessed Peter, but unspoken before the Council, as this truth was previously unchallenged. Amen. You will find this in Chapter 4, section 7, of the Council as follows:
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
Please do not get confused by the charlatans. They claim that the Council did not mean what the Council commands. They invoke contradiction the likes of which rocks the cosmos in its absurdity. Being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. The Council definitively teaches, as a properly catechized 10 year old would understand, that the Vicar of Christ was given the divine Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, period and end. The Council made NO DISTINCTIONS in this infallible command and therefore there simply cannot be ANY EXCEPTIONS to this same command.
It is impossible for a true Vicar of Christ to become an heretic, material or formal, as to be an heretic is to fall away from the Faith in error and/or in error and obstinacy. Amen. “Cum Ex….”, established as it defined, centuries before the Vatican Council, that if ANY would be, “Bishop”, was found to even, “deviate from the Faith”, let alone offer countenance to, “material heresy”, the layman who actually holds the divine and Catholic Faith would know this, deFide, and would withdraw any submission that he had to this man simply dressed as a, “Bishop”, who in truth was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and not a true Shepherd, even if that man appeared to undergo his episcopal consecration 30 years before the witness of his deviation from the divine and Catholic Faith, as no time limit was given and in fact Pope Paul IV commanded in spite of the passage of any amount of time. Amen. Alleluia.
Dear james_o, if you read so called, “Johnno’s”, work in the light of, “Cum Ex…” and the Vatican Council, it is objectively evident, as from his fruits, that he is a blatant heretic. Amen. All you have to read of so called, “Red”, is the last sentence that he claims above as now copied here:
“You couldn’t make it up, could you, and these are the men running the Catholic Church. No wonder it is in freefall all over the world, except St Peter’s Square that is.”
“Red”, actually parlays the claim that the false Popes since and including Angelo Roncalli, are not only authentically Catholic but are actually the Vicars of Jesus the Christ, as he posits that they are, “…the men running the Catholic Church. No wonder it is in a free fall all over the world except St. Peter’s Square that is.”
These Luciferian deceptions that these men hold are their fruits, james_o. The great sorrow is that they no more hold the divine and Catholic Faith then does their, “pope”, Jorge, whether they are going to so called, “Novus Ordo”, “SSPX”, “Sedevacantist chapels”, etc., etc., etc. The Early Church Fathers taught in unanimity, thus inerrantly, as a matter deFide thus, that there would be ONE prophetic TIME fulfilled, whereby the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be gone from the face of the earth without distinction, therefore without exception, (as definitively taught in, “Satis Cognitum”) and this would be the SAME TIME of the reign of Antichrist and his desolation that would follow him. Amen. Alleluia. All but all remain blind to this reality, which simply means they cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith which is the sole means of KNOWING these truths, as it always has been and will be unto the Last Day. Amen. As it relates to the heretical commentary of, “Rand”, again as above, of course all but all were blind to the assent of the first false pope as Angelo Roncalli in October, 1958, as he ascended the false see of Blessed Peter, the mirror image of the true See of Peter. Why would they have known, as it was the time of the summa and summit of the Great Apostasy, as begun by the minister of Lucifer himself, Martin Luther. Saint Paul warned the Church in 2 Thess 2, that 3 realities must occur before the Second Coming of The Christ: the, “revolt”, as the Great Apostasy, where all but all would have lost the divine and Catholic Faith and thus they were ripe as rotten fruit awaiting the coming of the false church of Antichrist. The taking out of the way of, “he who holdeth”, Satan from bringing forth the Antichrist into this world since the institution of the divine and Catholic Church. This is of course the removal of the Vicar of Christ from this earth, which occurred by the hand of God with the death of the Angelic Pastor, Pope Pius XII. The Pope was the singular force which prevented Satan from bringing forth his deception and, “lying wonders”, which is the false church of Antichrist masquerading in all of its permutations, as the Catholic Church. The third reality was the coming of Antichrist into this world, which would occur simultaneously with the loss of the Vicar of Christ from this world and the loss of the Holy Sacrifice. Amen. Alleluia. This is the divine and Catholic Faith. The charlatans like Tom A would have you believe that divine Truth, as in the Magisterium, can be parsed and separated, as one Encyclical has less weight or Apostolic Power of infallibility and divine Governance than another. He is simply another non-Catholic fool on his sure and certain path to Hell, deFide. The Tom A’s, Johnno’s, Red’s, A Simple Man’s, etc., all demonstrate the natural light of reason as apart from the divine and Catholic Faith, as they affront it, time and again, as these things themselves speak, as res ipsa loquitur. Study the living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, james_o, as this is Jesus the Christ as Truth Himself, teaching and governing His Church, perfectly inviolable and untarnished in Her Foundation (as infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”), unto the Last Day, which is the only divine, public revelation which the Holy Church yet awaits fulfillment of. Amen. Alleluia. Christ warned that when He comes again, all but all will be absent the Faith. We live that time james_o. Jesus the Christ commanded, “You will know them by their fruits.”. The fruit of all but all who claim to hold the divine and Catholic Faith is rotten, as is self-evident, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you, james_o. In caritas.
Dear “Red”, who is the “very learned lady” whom you quote, supra.?
“The principle [sic] errors are not merely doctrinal. They are philosophical and metaphysical. Metaphysical error causes doctrinal error. Faith builds upon nature. Philosophy is known as the Preamble or Disposition of the Faith.” This truth is generally implicitly denied, generally completely ignored. Faith and Reason are like two sides of the one coin.
Lord God Almighty, give us the grace to know, understand and worship Thee in the unity of the Son and Holy Ghost ever more and more. Viva Cristo Rey!
Hi again Tom A , the ones I hear defending Father Feeney are only defending what he taught so not sure what you mean by that plus the reason the Church attempted to excommunicate Father Feeney was because he rejected exactly the type of explanation you wrote above about the possibility of being saved outside of the Church.
Also, could you imagine if Jesus, Paul and the rest of His disciples (or The Church) went around preaching this: “Jesus is the ordinary means of salvation but God is not limited and may choose to save a soul outside of Jesus through some extraordinary means.” I don’t think so.
Well, that’s what the Popes and the bishops (or The Church) are preaching now at least since “Invicible Ignorance” in 1854 so to me it’s pretty obvious why Catholics are indifferent (unlike the early disciples) about the urgency to evangelize and always will be until the “II” doctrine gets the boot and again this major problem has nothing to do with whether Pope Francis is the Pope or not.
ASB, thanks for that info. It prooves what I said before about no pope previous to Pope Pius IX ever even mentioned the phrase Invicible Ignorance.
Anyway, here’s something Tom A, Melanie, the sspx, and the sedes that always defend Pope Pius IX and his “Invincible Ignorance” doctrine as if it was something that was taught by the Church from the earliest Popes on may find interesting if you have a Smart Phone: Tap Google, tap the microphone icon, than ask this question: Who was the first Pope to ever use the term “Invincible Ignorance”?
Actually the better question to ask your phone would be “who was the first pope (uh, that’s like over 250 Popes and 1,854 years later, BUT NO WAY thats not a new teaching or novelty because, uh, sedes say that can only happen at VII) to EVER TEACH about Invicible Ignorance”?
I understand what you are saying, thanks for that.
However, this whole Galileo affair has to be dealt with, and that’s a big problem. We have pre-VII Popes, starting to bend and concede to Modern “science” (falsely so-called), and against the consensus of the Holy Fathers on Creation. They did not condemn Evolution, they were silent on usury, and did not continue the war against Modernism after Pope Pius X. In fact they through their negligence, enabled “theistic evolution” in Catholic Schools and helped pave the way to VII. Totally against Revelation.
I don’t know how that can be so, and don’t know how to process that, but the blatant errors are there, at the very least materially. It looks even worse on some counts.
What’s your take on the Galileo affair, who was wrong? The Popes & Church Fathers and 1800 years of the Catholic teaching of Creation before 1835, or the Popes who suppressed it, and ran with “modern science” after?
We need you to weigh in here as well. Not many will even touch this topic.
I have been where you are, as The Christ commanded, “You will know them by their fruits.” I do know your anguish. I have no expertise nor interest in the so called, “Galileo Affair”, nor do I desire any, as this is another Luciferian conundrum, pure and simple. While Jesus the Christ commanded, “Seek the Truth and you shall find it.”, He also commanded that only those with the faith of a child will enter the Kingdom of God. Amen. Alleluia. As A Simple Beggar reminds us, it is ALWAYS and as to be singularly known, “Faith first”. Amen. Almighty God gave His perfectly miserable human creatures, after The Fall, the natural ability to reason to Truth, while Truth is divine, as Jesus the Christ is Truth. While at once we are given the natural ability to reason to Truth, we simply cannot, reason Truth, as to reason is to be human creature and Truth simply is The Christ as his Creator. The freely received Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith simply must occur in order for the human creature to submit to the Truth-to believe it, to hold it freely with conviction in the will, at any and all personal cost. Amen. Adam and Eve had preternatural intelligence, in the understanding of the angelic person but lesser of course. Since The Fall, we do not have the direct intelligence of God infused into our soul as did Adam and Eve.
Back to the Galileo Affair. If what Johnno writes is true, as to the specific heresy, Johnno himself an heretic, wrote it as this: “1) The the Sun was the center and immobile – censured as FORMAL HERESY.”
So there you have it james_o. The heresy is the heresy, as it relates the position of the sun as being in the center of the cosmos and it as being, immobile. That is quite clear in truth. Nothing else, as according to what Johnno wrote was condemned as heresy. Nothing as it relates the position and movement or lack thereof, of the earth.
Remember dear james_o, that whenever a matter of Faith, as is the perfectly infallible, divine, living, and perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which teaches that a true Pope cannot err in his teaching on matters of the Faith and Morality, and that we must give the same assent of faith to him in his matters of Governance and Discipline as we do to his teaching of the Faith and Morality, while at the pain of Hell, is perceived by the miserable human creature to be in error, it simply can NEVER BE, and rather it is the perfectly faulty human reasoning in its miserable attempt to reach the Truth, which is in perfect error, and of course it is, and even when unbeknownst to the one or many who hold the error. Right reason can never contradict the Faith, as the Faith can never be in contradiction with right reason. Amen. Alleluia. This is the Catholic Faith and the Church’s infallible teaching thus; depart from this, and the one who does, departs from the entirety of the Catholic Faith, deFide. Remember also that the material heretic and the formal heretic, if they die in that state, both go to Hell, as outside the Church. Heresy by its very immanent understanding, from its essence, places the one who holds it outside the Catholic Church where there is no salvation, deFide. The obstinate, formal heretic also suffers the pain in Hell for all eternity of the mortal sin of his obstinacy in spite of correction. Amen. To argue that a material heretic can get to the Beatific Vision as an heretic, is simply an absurdity, as one cannot both hold the divine and Catholic Faith as freely in his will and get to Heaven, while at the same time not hold the Faith as an heretic and also get to Heaven, as that is what an heretic is, one who holds a belief or beliefs in opposition to the Faith, or rejects tenets of the Faith. Amen. You cannot oppose the Faith and accept the Faith, at one and the same time.
Lucifer is having his day with all of these would be, “popes”, who are deciding by virtue of their faulty power of human reasoning alone, as singularly without holding the divine and Catholic Faith in their wills, as they bear witness to their countenancing heresy time and again, that the one man in Apostolic Succession in the cosmos at any given time when he was still present in this world, is in any iota of anyway in error on any matter or matters of the Faith and Morality, when Blessed Peter in his Successors was given the divine protections of, “truth and never failing faith”, deFide. Amen. Alleluia. Save your soul james_o. Divorce yourself from Lucifer’s game as he will always win against anyone who is not protected by the divine grace of receiving the Faith. His preternatural intelligence perfectly as always wins, when confronting the bare, natural light of human reason, as his summa of intelligence cannot even be glimpsed by the human, imaginative power. Amen. The Faith must be freely received by the human person in accordance with God’s Will and be preeminent in the mind of the human person. The Faith can never err but human reason can and most frequently does and especially today in this time of desolation after Antichrist. Amen. I know your pain as I was where you are. Amen. I will do my best to field any more specific questions that you may have in this regard. God’s Will be done. Amen. God bless you james_o. In caritas.
You wrote this above to Melanie:
” The same cannot be said for a Pope since, if a true Pope can become a heretic, he ipso facto loses his office. I personally agree with Opinion #1 from Bellarmine but am with him that is is not certain, only probable.”
You must assent to the reality as it is, that this statement of yours’ is today heresy, pure and simple. I pray that the eminent Saint and Doctor of Holy Church, Robert Bellarmine, is now praying for your conversion. There has only been one Vatican Council of the Catholic Church, as established by the Incarnate Son of God pigg0124, and this infallible Council forever unto the Last Day, closed any theological speculation or debate about the reality as it is, truth thus, that the true Vicar of Christ simply cannot lose his personal faith, period and end. This perfect canard of, “the conciliar church”, is once again an inversion of Truth parlayed by the Liar as Lucifer himself. It tacitly suggests the idea that those men who called that so called, “second vatican council”, were not only Catholic men but they were Shepherds in the Succession of the Apostles and their pope was the Vicar of Jesus the Christ. Amen. This is a perfect lie, as those men cannot both be Catholic as Bishops of Holy Church and NOT BE Catholic as Bishops of Holy Church, at one and the same time, and under the same respect of what true Vicars of Christ and Bishops in Succession of the Holy Apostles actually are. Amen. Councils DO NOT BEGET churches, rather, churches beget councils. In analogical description, something red is not a car because it is red, but that same something which happens to be red accidentally, maybe a car, as it holds the metaphysical accidental form of being red. It is the car which begets its redness, as it is a church which begets its council. The subject and the object of that same subject. The, “object”, does not beget its, “subject”, rather the subject begets its object. Amen. As quoted above from the Holy Council, now again for your edification. You will find this in chapter 4 of the Fourth and Final Session of the Council-18 July, 1870- in section 7:
““This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
It was right and proper for the eminent Catholic Theologian, now Doctor and Saint of Holy Church, Robert Bellarmine, to speculate about the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy in his time, yet as you know, he was very careful, doubting the possibility. Amen. Alleluia. Certainly, the Council Fathers would have reflected upon his teaching as they worked under the divine protection of the Blessed Paraclete to define this, “…gift of truth and never-failing faith…”, “…divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…” The machinations which occur in Council are to no avail, as the Church teaches, rather it is only as singularly that which is defined in the end, by the Shepherds in union with their Pope, which is deFide. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that you see your material heresy. Amen. God bless you pigg0124. In caritas.
This quote “from a very learned lady”, is brilliant. Learned indeed. Thanks for posting this. Who is this masked lady?
It is very tragic that most identifying Catholics will not look into this, when it was an attack upon Divine Revelation itself, right at the heart of it. Why do those who identify themselves as Catholic not care about these attacks against Creation? Why do they insist that it is a matter of no importance or interest?
If the Popes of the Church were wrong for 1800 years, and the Holy Fathers in the exegesis of Holy Scripture, then all previous teachings of the Church are cast into doubt. This whole Galileo affair was the beginning of a tremendous fall.
See how this combox goes quiet when you what to bring up the subject? That’s how they were able to foster this huge error in the first place, people think it doesn’t matter, or simply don’t care.
I am truly disgusted.
Simply put, when they removed the heliocentric books from the index in 1835, it was an admission that the Church was wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture. It was, at the same time conceding to the opinions of modern science at that time over Divine Revelation that the earth was fixed, and that the sun moved in circles.
The accepted theory of heliocentrism of the science community back then was much simpler than it is now, and only included our immediate “solar system”. That was way before the non-science of the present big-bang cosmogony and evolution.
In 1835 those “scientific” men taught that the sun was the center of the universe (our solar system), and fixed. Now they have expanded that doctrine infinitely, and our solar system is now firing away from the point of the big bang at millions of miles an hour into the infinite, black vacuum of space. That’s the camel that everyone eagerly swallows.
Divine Revelation vs. the doctrine of man.
And churchmen have been busy ever since trying to hammer that false nail into Holy Scripture.
That lady James o is a friend who is shy and prefers to be anonymous. But I agree, she understands the position so well she can sum it up as well as she did. Here is an interesting quote that also sums up the Galileo case. Its all a matter of PRIDE.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truths if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” — L. Tolstoy.
What the infallible 1616 degree confirms, i.e. the Divinely reveiled truth as stated in the Bible, is incredibly beautiful.
It does not discredit the Sedevacantist position that there has been no Pope since 1958.
Without inviting any direct comparison, those pre-Vatican Popes who have been weak and failed to affirm this Truth, might perhaps fall into the category of Pope Honorius or Liberius (we will probably not know in our lifetimes) with regard to their omission.
The Heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord!
Good Wednesday night james_o,
You wrote this:
“Simply put, when they removed the heliocentric books from the index in 1835, it was an admission that the Church was wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture. It was, at the same time conceding to the opinions of modern science at that time over Divine Revelation that the earth was fixed, and that the sun moved in circles.”
To address your first sentence now:
“Simply put, when they removed the heliocentric books from the index in 1835, it was an admission that the Church was wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture.”
Your interpretation of what the Holy Catholic Church did here is simply wrong and objectively. Your supposition is that because so called, “heliocentric books”, were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books, by virtue of that very act of removing them from the Index, the Church somehow then negated what you claim She always taught as, “…Her interpretation of Scripture.”.
Firstly james_o, the Holy Church has defined infallibly what She has defined infallibly, nothing more and nothing less, and that is a matter deFide, yes. We are not allowed to somehow, read into that and apply the definition in any iota of anyway other than that in which the Holy Church has applied it, and then for us to errantly as fallibly cast judgment upon these infallible definitions, while at once using our blind natural lights of reason to apply these definitions in such a way that the true Vicar of Christ did not. These matters are deFide, as no infallible definition which Holy Church has given us, to assist us in our salvation, is at all questionable, debatable, or changeable, and at the pain of eternal Hell. Period and end. Amen. Alleluia. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate once and again, the lack of receiving the divine and Catholic Faith into the will as freely. Amen.
If Johnno is correct in what he wrote as: ““1) The the Sun was the center and immobile – censured as FORMAL HERESY.”, then that is the heresy, pure and simple.
Think very carefully about what you are opining now in conjecture. You are positing that because the Holy Office removed books which may contain heretical errors in them, if those same books claim in the positive belief that which is contra, to that which the Vicar of Christ infallibly taught as heresy, that this act of releasing books somehow negates what you claim as, “an admission that the Church was wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture.”
How do you even begin to surmise such an error? The Vicar of Christ is infallible in his teaching on Faith and Morality. If Johnno is correct, the Vicar of Christ infallibly taught that it is heresy to believe that—“the sun was the center [of the cosmos] and immobile”—that is the heresy. Now somehow you conclude that because the Holy Office released books (assuming that is correct) that may suggest this heresy, this is according to you, “an admission that the Church was wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture.” Considering nothing else, that is such a massive leap from supposition to a conclusion, that the conjecture which is the foundation of that conclusion is perfectly lost.
Think about what you are suggesting here james_o, as what you suppose is patent heresy and it is this, that the Church is, “admitting”, that She was, “wrong all along about Her interpretation of Scripture.” It is a patently obvious matter as deFide, that the Mystical Body of Christ simply CANNOT BE WRONG in Her interpretation of the Holy Writ, therefore your conclusion is utter heresy. This is a foundational reality of the reception of the divine and Catholic Faith, dear james_o. One simply cannot hold the Faith which he at the same time rejects, as this is absurd and itself is a matter deFide. Pope Leo XIII teaches in, “Satis Cognitum”, that he who rejects utterly one tenet of the Faith, is not Catholic, as he rejects the entire Faith then, as Truth is a divine Person and He cannot be parsed. Amen. Alleluia. When you think about these perceived problems, you simply must begin with matters deFide as perfectly inviolable and impenetrable realities as they are, which cannot be altered by one iota. Amen. All human reasoning which challenges any Truth in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is simply as utterly and patently in error. There is NO alternative, period and end, while at the pain of a personal eternity with Lucifer, who is the master as quintessential deceiver and Liar. Amen. The Vicars of Christ simply were not moved by the Blessed Paraclete to define the position of the earth in the cosmos and as such theological speculation is open. It IS NOT OPEN as to the sun being fixed in the center of the cosmos, which is heresy. Amen. I pray that anything this perfectly miserable wretch now writing you, may by the power of the Holy Ghost alone, assist you in your salvation, dear james_o. In caritas.
Exactly, that’s what I was trying to explain above, and the whole point.
“It IS NOT OPEN as to the sun being fixed in the center of the cosmos, which is heresy.”
But that’s exactly what they did, by taking those books off the index. It was a perfect and complete u-turn to what was decreed before. The formal teaching of “scientific” heliocentric model at that time (1835) was that the sun WAS fixed, as was explained above. The heliocentric theory has been constantly changing over time, because it’s based on endless speculations of men.
It was forbidden in the 1616 Magisterial decree to teach exactly that, and that’s why those books were on that index in the first place. It was against Holy Scripture and the Church.
And that caused the big problem.
By taking those books off the index, they flatly contradicted the earlier and formal Magisterial teaching which forbade the teaching of heliocentrism. There was a huge scandal later in the 19th Century, where evil men used this as a weapon against the doctrine of the Pope’s infallibility.
It was and is very significant because it reversed the old order, that Theology was the Queen of Sciences, and all other lesser scientific studies were always subject to God, His Church, and Divine Revelation. It is a Satanic inversion, to place the Church subject to the lesser sciences. It was the start of a downward spiral which made average Catholics prey to whatever whim modern science came up with. Especially when it came to their belief of Creation and the cosmos.
The Creation account of Genesis has slowly since been relegated to become a mere allegory. Now, if you hold to a literal belief in Genesis, according to the older Church tradition and the Holy Fathers, you will be scorned as a “fundamentalist”. Ignorant to progress.
May the good Lord bless and keep you.
Good Thursday morning dear james_o,
Removing books from the Index, does not, as it cannot, alter the divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and UNENDING, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This is simply a matter deFide and as such in denying this, the one who does so, denies the entire Catholic Faith, and this truth itself, deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”. Amen. The books were placed on the Index prior to the declaration of the heresy of the so called, “heliocentric”, cosmological model, for suspicion of heresy. Amen. Once this was defined as heresy, the divine protection is at hand, as it is inviolable and impenetrable. This is the work of the Holy Ghost, you must know and remember, after all, through the hand of His Vicar of Christ. Amen. Alleluia. God works in mysterious ways which are perfectly inscrutable to the human intellect. Obedience firstly and foremost and we can assent to Truth only by virtue of the reception of the divine and Catholic Faith. We cannot reason Truth. We can only reason to the Truth and when that reasoning contradicts deFide teaching, that reasoning is simply in ERROR, period and end. You must assent to this Reality as it Is. Remember the command of Jesus the Christ dear james_o: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first DENY himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” We must utterly humble ourselves to the point of non-existence, if this were possible, as we do not exist without the vertical Act of the Primover God, as the Primemover, unmoved. Amen. Alleluia. The Peace of Christ which is known in full submission is not communicable. You will know this if/when you receive it. There is no tempest of tempests which can disturb your peace then, in knowing Him as Truth Himself, as He commanded: He who KNOWS My commands and follows them, loves Me, and as I Am in the Father, you are in Me, and I in you. Know His Peace dear james_o, not of this world as it gives false serenity. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
So, I gather what you mean by your replies is that all of this is merely a problem of my “personal judgements”, and not an a real and actual objective problem.
That there’s no contradictions here, in reality.
Good Friday morning dear james_o,
Yes. Where there is contradiction, Truth cannot be found as it is opposed to Him. The living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending Ordinary and Universal Magisterium simply cannot be in contradiction, as this is divinely impossible. Amen. The light of human reason, on the other hand, of course as infinitely understood. This is a matter deFide and of course. The Church cannot fail in Her mission to assist in the salvation of human souls who are submissive. Amen. Alleluia. The personal cross we must take up is hard but it is True and Beautiful and Good. Amen. Read again, “Satis Cognitum”, and I pray it gives you peace in this. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
I am fully aware that the Church cannot contradict Herself. It’s impossible.
However, men can contradict the teachings of the Church, and they in fact did, big time, as outlined above. It’s an historical reality.
That’s why I stick with the 1616 Magisterial teaching.
I think the question is, does the removal of certain books from the Index constitute a reversal of Church teaching and belief? As for me, whatever the Truth of the matter is, I believe it. As I understand it, heliocentrism is heresy and I no longer believe that the earth is flying through “space” at 66,666 miles per hour. God says over and over that it is immovable, and that is the Word. He cannot contradict Himself nor lie. I believe there is a firmament above, just as He says, and that we cannot break through it, as in recent times has actually come from the horses’ mouths themselves (we can’t get past….the area the name of which escapes me at the moment). Heliocentrism is rooted in occultism, period.
Whatever the Truth is, known or understood by me or not (because of myself I am ignorant and know nothing), to that I assent with my entire being.
Dear “A Simple Beggar”, I think you allude to the Van Allen Belts of radiation.
That’s it – thank you (if they even exist).
ASB is referring to the firmament itself, Genesis teaches a “closed” system. Not an “open” system, like modern speculative “science”. It’s an enclosed pressure system.
The Van Allen radiation belt, is actually a layer high above the earth, but within and under the firmament itself. The Sun, Moon, and stars were created the 4th Day, after the Earth was created (the 3rd day), and they were placed by God within (inside) the firmament, but above that layer.
That’s one of the reasons (among many) why the moon landings were just a false, cold war psy-op. They still don’t know how to pass through that layer.
That’s right, heliocentrism is a heresy. The Magisterium decreed it. But, by 1835, that act itself of removing those books “appeared” to many at the time and since, that the Church was backpedaling on the issue. Especially the media at the time. And they used it. There was a real circus made of it around the Vatican Council, with men using that removal as “proof” that the doctrine of the infallibility of Popes was false. The media at the time exploited it everywhere and portrayed it in a way that the old Church was keeping people in the dark ages, and against any scientific progress, and that modern science had proved the Popes wrong.
What’s more, people are trying now, to use the false argument that the Sun does move after all, in the current, new and improved and expanded big-bang model of the universe dreamed up in the 20th century. So it’s ok to believe it now. It was a Catholic Jesuit Priest, George Lemaitre who came up with the theory of the Big Bang! Just great.
Notice how they refer to our immediate cosmos as “our SOLAR system”. It’s begging heliocentrism right from the start. What’s more is that “our solar system” is heliocentric in their model still, in relation to the earth. Whether the solar system stands on it’s own, alone, or whether it’s fired from the point of the big Bang at millions of miles an hour into an eternal, black vacuum of space nothingness, it’s the same deal. The solar system they teach remains heliocentric.
The sun is still “fixed” in our “solar system” in relation to the earth, and the earth still orbits around the sun. It’s false to argue that that model is not heliocentric.
I’m not going to post anymore on this issue, it’s a topic of zero interest for 99.9%.
I don’t blame you, James. I feel the same way about it. I just began to type what I think the issue might be (and it connects to the rest we talk about here) but stopped myself. Why bother even uttering it? Like you, I do feel this is important because it involves heresy, something that I don’t want any part of and really, we shouldn’t be taking our chances.
I will say that removing books from the Index doesn’t seem to constitute a reversal and acceptance and/or official teaching of heresy by the Chair of Peter or the Church, especially when we know that to be impossible. Interestingly, someone recently asked me to read a speech given by Pope Pius XII in 1950 or so, as it seems he embraced some of this “science” as a possibility. They wanted my opinion on whether or not we had to believe these ideas because the Pope uttered it and it may be in the Acta. I shot holes through that idea by analyzing the language he used which denoted nothing more than speculation, theory and uncertainty. No Catholic can possibly be obligated to believe a mere scientific and unproven theory or idea. Never has a Pope or the Church officially taught anything contrary to what you and I now know.
Good early Tuesday morning dear james_o,
Please consider again what you have last written to me as copied here:
I am fully aware that the Church cannot contradict Herself. It’s impossible.
However, men can contradict the teachings of the Church, and they in fact did, big time, as outlined above. It’s an historical reality.
That’s why I stick with the 1616 Magisterial teaching.”
The Vicar of Christ was given, by the Incarnate Son of God as singularly, the divine Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, as infallibly taught Authoritatively by the Vatican Council, 18 July, 1870. Amen. You errantly suggest dear james_o that the Vicar of Christ can somehow be distinguished from the Church which you correctly claim, “cannot contradict Herself.”. It is the Vicar of Christ who was given these divine Gifts as Charisms to protect the Magisterium from ever being in error. Period and end. The Vicar of Christ is the Chief Pastor as Chief Shepherd, whom Jesus the Christ placed in the world in His place, to guard and protect the Deposit of Faith, which cannot change james_o.
“Satis Cognitum”, infallibly teaches that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is, “perpetual”, among other realities. As perpetual, it simply cannot end but it also simply cannot change as, “unchanging and unending”, as both/and, are the immanent meaning of the word, “perpetual”. When you wrote this james_o, “That’s why I stick with the 1616 Magisterial teaching.”, you tacitly suggest that the perpetual Magisterium of the year 1616, is somehow other than the perpetual Magisterium of any other year or any other century, which the Magisterium simply cannot be, as Truth is a divine Person and He is perpetual as He is eternal. Amen. Your reasoning is flawed james_o, as it must and can only be, as the Magisterium is divine and it is a matter, deFide, that it cannot be in contradiction, just as the singular man in the cosmos who was given the divine protections to guard it while he was here, from ever changing, as Truth cannot change. Amen. Just as the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium cannot be in contradiction, the Vicar of Christ who protects it from error, while teaching and governing as Pope, cannot be in contradiction, and to suggest otherwise is heresy. I pray that you see your error and submit. Amen. God bless you james_o. In caritas.